Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	husband_n	wife_n	word_n	3,358	5	4.9141	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09914	A defence for mariage of priestes by Scripture and aunciente wryters. Made by Iohn Ponet, Doctoure of Diuinitee.	Ponet, John, 1516?-1556.	1549 (1549)	STC 20176; ESTC S105304	28,704	99

virginitee hynder the one Or dyd maryage hynder thother Thou seest Helias ridyng in a carte in the ayre Thou seest Moses passyng thorough the myddes of the sea Beholde Peter also a Piller of the Church had a wyfe c. In case that ye thynke that the exāples of Moses Helias and Peter be not enough I wyl be so bolde to bring example of Chrysostome to adde vnto theym thre hollye Abraham and all the rest of Patriarkes and Prophetes of the olde testament All the Apostles of Christ in the new testament Actu 21. Philip the euāgelist who had many doughters Cheremon a bishop in Egipt of a citie called Nilopolis These shall ye haue ●in Eccl●si histo of Euseb. Philias also whiche was bothe byshop and Marter and Policrates a Byshop of the Ephesians which sayd Seuen of my fore fathers by ordre wer Byshoppes of this See and I am the eyght Spiridion and a great numbre of holly men mo whiche all were maried highly in the fauour of God Mariage was no more hinderance to Abraham and the rest of the Patriarches touching the trew seruice of God and beyng in the fauour of god then it was to Moses Mariage was no hinderance to all the rest of the Apostles neither is it this day to any other godly man so that by the meanes thereof they bee not caste oute of the fauoure of God more then was sayncte Peter And saincte Ihon Chrysostom vpon the epistle to Tite sayeth Adeo preciosa res est matrimonium ut poss●t quis cum eo ad sanctum Episcopatus solium sub●ehi So precious a thynge is Matrimonye sayeth he that a manne maye ascende with it to the holly seat of a byshop Let then this vayne quarrell that mariage shoulde hynder enny man from the seruice of God be no more alledged as though there were a great matter in it when it is sufficientely shewed that there is none in deede But this geare they thynke wyll soone bee aunswered grauntynge that the Apostles and other holly bishops and priestes had wyues as I say Mary than will they say agayn that neither the apostles neyther the reste of the forenamed Ecclesiasticall persons had any matrimoniall vse of their wyfes after the tyme of their election to their ministery but did put them away and vtterly forsooke the companye of theim after that tyme. Well yet than graunt they that the apostles and other holy byshoppes and priestes had wiues euen in the tyme of their apostleshyp and ministerye whyche thyng I take at their handes as wonne good grounde For by that haue al they granted whiche flee to this obiection ▪ that a maried man maie be a prieste his wyfe being aliue After this victory then let vs thus procede The apostles they saie put awaye their wyues after the tyme they were called to the preachynge of the Gospell If I should aske ye howe you proue that shoulde not the beste reason or auctoritee that ye coulde bryng for your purpose bee blynde reason or coniecture Well answer what ye shal thynk good whā I haue made aunswere to your former obiection Whan ye speake of puttyng away of wyues it is conuenient that ye call to remembrance the laufull causes why a man may put awaye his wyfe by goddis woorde And in serchyng ye shall fynde there that a man can not put awaye his wyfe for any other cause Mat 5. 19. but for adulterye onely Than is the preachynge of the Gospell no cause why a man shoulde put away his wyfe Muche lesse for the Apostles of Christe whose lyfe was a rule to all the reste of the Christen congregation I trust you bee not so shamelesse that ye wyll chalenge the Apostles wynes to bee euyll women for the mayntenance of your fond reason And yet yf you woulde so dooe it maye be gathered by the Scripture that they were godlye and obedient women to their husbandes to your confusion It is to be thought that suche as Christe appoynted to rule the whole Congregacion were hable to rule their wyues their chyldren and family or elles shuld not Christ haue obserued the same rule in chusyng of his apostles as Paule prescribed to Timothye in chusynge a Bysshoppe 1. Tim. 3. If they were obedient wyues to their husbandes as by that scripture it may bee gathered that they were you must nedes graunt that the Apopostles dyd not put away their wyues for if they hadde they shoulde haue offended agaynste Goddes woorde who chargeth man not to put awaye his wyfe for any cause but for adultery only Thus then I conclude Goddes woorde sayeth that no man maye put awaye his wyfe excepte for adultery ergo they dyd not put them away Yea and further it maye be thus proued by scripture that they had Matrimoniall companye with theire wyues in thys wyse The worde of God was the onely rule of the Apostles lyfe So that what soeuer Goddes woorde commaunded them so they dyd But Gods worde commaunded them saiynge Vir uxori debitum reddat 1. Cor. 17 similiter et uxor uiro Let the man render the dutye of a husbande to his wyfe and the woman to her husbande Ergo the Apostles beyng ruled by the sayde scripture obeiyng gods worde in this poynte had matrimonial company with their wiues and did acordyngly as scripture willeth them For a profe wherof the scripture doth testify that the apostles the brothers of the Lord Cephas caried their wiues about with thē to what purpose I pray you if it wer not for the auoidynge of that inconuenience agaynste the whyche matrimonie is prouyded by god for remedye If a wyfe be a trouble to theim that be prieestes as some do alledge it why lefte they not theyr wiues at one place remainyng and discharged theim selues of so cloggyng a cariage as by the scripture it shoulde seeme that Paule dyd I doubt not but that they wold haue so doone yf the infirmitee of the fleshe had not dissuaded them to the contrary Retourne not to your former fantasy sayeng as ye bee wont that ye can not be answered for if ye can defende without blushyng that scripture rightly alleged is not sufficient to confound your coniecture whyche is directly agaynst it than is your face so blyndelesse that it can not blusshe A priest may not put awei his wife vnder p̄tence of holines And because no man should pretende a religious holynesse by the meanes whereof he myghte shyfte awaye his wyfe the apostles decreed as it appeereth in their Canons Apostolorū Can. 5. that Episcopus aut presbyter vxorem propriam nequaquā sub obtentu religionis abijciat A bysshop or a prieste in no wyse maie put awaie his wife vnder the pretence of holynesse and colour of religion by the whiche Canon it maie appeere that the apostles dyd not put away their wyues And yet came there a sorte of heritikes named Eustachiani shortly after the apostles tyme who sayde that priestes