Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
nature_n adam_n law_n positive_a 2,764 5 11.6503 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A45411 Deuterai phrontides, or, A review of the paraphrase & annotations on all the books of the New Testament with some additions & alterations / by H. Hammond ... Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660. 1656 (1656) Wing H534; ESTC R7800 215,836 321

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

in which the power of God shews it self The difference of it from other the like acts of power they say is this that it belongs to the just and unjust whereas say they the resurrection belongs to the just onely and so saith our Saviour of it Mat. 5.45 Ibid. Note a. Of the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for acts of single persons not suffrages of many Adde And so Maximus Tyrius of Darius's horse which by neighing made his Master King of the Persians saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Persians did not adore or salute Darius till his wanton horse had created him King Ibid. To the place of Theophylact explicating imposition of hands 2 Tim. 1.6 by ordaining Bishop Adde And so S. Chrysostome on those words Act. 6.6 having pray'd they laid hands on them saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were ordained by prayer for this is ordination making 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stretching out the hands and laying on the hands to be all one Ibid. Of the promiscuous use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for constituting indifferently whether by one or more to 2 Cor. 8.19 Adde So Chrysostome speaking of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he presently constitutes them And Socrates of Constantine in the twentieth year of his reign 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in the thirtieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both noting the constituting or creating of Caesar a work of the Emperor onely So Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the person of Joseph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my Master hath constituted me over all in his house So Zacharias Bishop of Mitylene speaking of Gods creating of man as a King and guest for whom a palace and a feast were before prepared he expresseth it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was chosen sure not by the suffrages of many but by God the one Creator and set forth to be both the King and the guest of the good things which the Great Master of the feast had set before him Chap. XV. Note d. Of the fourth precept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of disclosing nakedness i. e. of abstaining from all uncleaness Adde and interdicted marriages within those degrees which are set down L●v. 18. Ibid. p. 424. col 1. l. 27. Of the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from blood for the effusion of mans blood Adde So Saint Cyprian understood it ad Quirin Abstinere à sanguinis effusione to abstain from effusion of blood which he cannot mean of the blood of beasts for that they were commanded not forbidden to powre out upon the ground Lev. 17.13 and so others whom S. Austin mentions Cont. Faust Manich. Intelligunt à sanguine abstinendum nequis homicidio se contaminet they understood the precept of abstaining from blood that none should pollute himself with homicide And for those that understand it of the blood of beasts many of them leave out the mention of things strangled as being all one with this notion of it So doth Irenaeus l. 3. c. 12. Tertullian de pudicit c. 12. and S. Austin in that place against Faustus giving this interpretation of it nè quicquam ederent carnis cujus sanguis non esset effusus not to eat any flesh whose blood hath not been powred out though some others by mistake I suppose understand it of the blood of beasts and yet retain the mention of things strangled also Ibid. lin 43. In the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fornication to that of unnaturall pollutions from Thomas Magister Adde As also the marriages within forbidden degrees which are called the disclosing of nakedness Lev. 18. and appear to have been interdicted before the Levitical Law by the punishment that fell upon the nations for the breach of them v. 27. and are expresly styled fornication 1 Cor. 5.1 Ibid. lin 47. Before the Aethiopick interpreter Adde Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 12. Ibid. col 2. lin 15. For where if it be asked c. to lin 37. 2dly that they Read thus Now if it be demanded whether by virtue of this decree thus explained All these particulars the whole seven Precepts of the sonnes of Adam and Noah be not here given to all Christians and consequently whether all such are not here commanded strictly to abstain from things strangled to powre out the blood of beasts upon the ground and not to eat it in any manner of preparation To this I answer by remembring 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things offered to Idols are here joyned with these under the same interdict and those in S. James's first draught of the Canon called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pollutions or abominations of Idols which yet Saint Paul expressely defines after this time not to be unlawfull for Christians to eat of unless in one peculiar case 2dly Then it must be considered that these Precepts of the sonnes of Noah were not all of one kind in respect of the matter some of them were branches of the Law of Nature written in mens hearts before they were given to the sonnes either of Adam or Noah some of them were not so but onely of Gods positive Law given first to them and after to the Jewes Those which were of the former sort did no doubt remain in force to all mankind and so obliged the Gentiles which then received the faith and so all other Christians to the worlds end As for those of the second sort they are again to be distinguished some of them being given to Adam in the first creation of which Asterius saith Hom. de Repudio p. 590. E. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they became the nature of the whole posterity others not to Adam but to the sonnes of Noah some again confirmed and continued by Christ others not That of fornication or disclosing of nakedness as a branch of the matrimonial and so positive law given at the first creation of male and female and containing under it the prohibition of incestuous marriages or such as are within the degrees limited Lev. 18. is sure obligatory to all specially being under the same interdict by Christ as in the Gospell is expressely set down by him in point of divorce and polygamie wherein he referres them to the Original Law given to the sonnes of Adam but for the hardness of hearts dispensed with among the Jewes and by the Apostle is taken for granted in that other branch of prohibited degrees 1 Cor. 5.1 and therefore of this there is as little doubt but that it still remains in force among Christians But for those other two of meats of abstaining from things offered to Idols and blood or things strangled as neither of them were of the Law of Nature which leaves all meats indifferent and free to all men in all times but stand onely by positive Law given to the sonnes of Noah the latter expressely