Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	aaron_n	ark_n	offer_v	17	3	6.8497	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07801	A defence of the innocencie of the three ceremonies of the Church of England viz. the surplice, crosse after baptisme, and kneeling at the receiuing of the blessed Sacrament. Diuided into two parts: in the former whereof the generall arguments vrged by the non-conformists; and, in the second part, their particular accusations, against these III. ceremonies seuerally, are answered, and refuted. Published by authoritie.	Morton, Thomas, 1564-1659.	1618 (1618)	STC 18179; ESTC S112905	183,877	338

end that therby he might alie●●te him from the loue of his owne Country and the Religion of his God Therefore Daniel lest he might bee insnared with these allurements of riot did abstaine from all that dainty fare If you further demand why Daniel called the Kings diet a pollution or abhomination vnto him listen againe for your satisfaction to the said Authour Non fuit quidem c. It was not in it selfe abhominable for it was free for Daniel to eate or drinke but it is called an abhomination for the consequence thereof Thus M. Caluin Where by Consequences he meaneth lest Daniel by such dainties as by the diuels baites might receiue his spirituall bane by forgetting the holy Couenant Religion and the worship of the onely God Nothing can be more plaine to proue that by these words Being polluted with the Kings meates is not meant any pollution Ceremoniall as if the meates had bene Idolatrous but onely Morall or occasionall as being baites and allurements to draw him to an irreligious forgetfulnesse of holy duties Seeing therefore this reason doth not argue ad idem it will become you to take some other Testimonies whereby you may make good your first assertion SECT VI. Their fift Instance from Scripture in the Example of Hezekias 2. King 18. Hezekias his zeale in breaking downe the Brazen Serpent which God himselfe had ordained for a figure of Christ is commended in Scripture for that it being polluted with abhominable Idolatry he brake it in peeces Our Answer This noble fact of that religious King is in indeed commended in Scripture and therfore ought to be honorable among all devout and religious worshippers of God vnto the ends of the world Wee grant that God had wrought by the Serpent a miraculous safety to his people by deliuering them from the stings of fiery Serpents and that for this very cause it was as some thinke long after reserued in some part of the Temple for the remembrance of so great a benefite euen as the Pot of Manna and Aarons Rod were kept in the Arke to the like end But when the Israelites began to defile it by offering Incense vnto it then did Ezekias demolish it and that for foure speciall respects The first was because there was now Flagrans delictum that is that Idolatry was notorious and in the heate Secondly it was generall and publicke Thirdly it was done within the compasse of that place and among that people which were otherwise the professed worshippers of God Fourthly the Act it selfe was offering Incense vnto a creature the most grosse and palpable kinde of Idolatry that can be for whereas bowing and kneeling may carry some shew of pretence in them because the same gestures are vsed sometimes civilly without any iust exception against them yet Sacrificing is an externall act so properly and essentially belonging vnto God that euery eye which beholdeth such Acts must needs iudge them Idolatrous Lastly the case was now desperate and without vtter extirpation thereof past all hope of reducing that figure to the former vse and end which was a co●m●moration of Gods mercy in their miraculous deli●●rance It is by the way a point very obseruable that Ezekias did not destroy the Idols which Salomon suffe●ed to be s●t vp in fauour of his strange wiues that were of Heathenish religion placing in one Temple Astaroth which was the god of the Zidonians In an other Molech the Idoll of the Ammonites In a third Chames the god of the Moabites The reason whereof was because in the daies of Ezekias they were neglected no man adoring them yet afterward when they occasioned Idolatry the good King Iosias did breake them downe which Ezekias in his time had spared notwithstanding is the same Ezekias commended by God as walking in the steps of Dauid as well as Iosias Besides Zanchius thought not this act of Ezekias to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or an vniversall remedie for all Abuses of Ceremonies when he said of some indifferent Rites that had beene abused Tolli ea prorsus possunt saepe etiam debent They may and sometimes they ought to bee vtterly abolished Sicut Ezekias euen as did Ezekias Intimating that the example of Ezekias is to hold but sometimes onely that is in case of necessity for of some Ceremonies that haue beene abused he said onely Tolli possunt they may be remoued which is a word of indifferencie and signifieth that they may be also not removed But if that proceeding of Ezekias concerning those Israelites against Heathenish Idolatry shall be still vrged vpon our Magistrates in respect of the Popish Ceremonies wherewith they may seeme to symbolize although but in an outward appearance onely then are you to be informed of the manifest disparities in this comparison First that Idolatry of the Iewes being done both publikely and generally and also within the bowels of the same Church for the Serpent was then kept at Hierusalem called for an Ezekias to remoue it But that which is done of Papists is in a Church separated from vs or if you will suppose any to be Idolatrous among vs yet is that neither generall nor publique but so secret that it is done by you know not whom vnlesse you meane certaine men moulded in your owne fancies and onely imagined to haue committed such Idolatry The second distance may be this that the case of reformation of the Idolatry committed vnder the gouernment of Ezekias became desperate and therefore required an answerable remedie which as then the case stood could be no other then to abolish the figure without delay But within the Kingdomes of our Ezekias this disease would be found curable without any such extremity especially in this our most truely reformed Church wherein we draw the sweet breath of the pure truth of God If you will allow that to be called a Reformed Church which doth most liuely expresse the face and full body of her primitiue mother-Church I spare to insist vpon the grossenesse of that outward fact which was Offering Incense lest the weakenesse of some Reader may suspect that when I would excuse the Papists à Tanto I would free them à Toto crimine by these comparisons SECT VII The second Obiection for the abolishing of Ceremonies Heathenishly abused from the Testimonies of Councels and Fathers by diuers Instances Their first Instance In the first Councell at Carthage it was decreed that such Altars as werei● the Country and High-waies in memory of the Martyrs should be abolished although they were pretended to bee set vp by reuelations and visions Our Answer He that in causes of weight will looke vpon bookes onely with other mens eyes may peraduenture forfeite his owne by mistaking and mis-reporting the meaning of the Authours Certainely this Councell in the place alleaged doth not forbid absolutely the building of Altars for the memory of Martyrs in the High-waies as you affirme but onely in such wayes and

which maketh a man fall either into dangerous errours in doctrine or else some sinfull act of conuersation Thirdly by weakenesse they interpret such an hinderance whereby a Christian is made onely more slow and remisse in the profession and course of Christianity Which three phrases are notwithstanding expounded more pertinently by others to be set downe thus seuerally not by way of distinction but for exaggeration of the sinne of wilfull offence against Christians in prouoking of them vnto any damnable errour or sinne by any sensible externall meanes And in this last sence do we proceed to discusse this Argument concerning scandall SECT II. Our second Answer is by distinction of the kindes of scandall I. Diuision That distinction of scandall will best fit our purpose whereby it is vsually diuided into these two members the one is called Actiue the other Passiue SECT III. Our I. Subdiuision of Actiue Scandall is in respect of the partie Agent direct indirect The Actiue is in respect of the partie Agent who by an Act which he doth shall willingly prouoke another to any euill And this kind admitteth many Subdiuisions First than an Actiue Scandall is either directly euill or onely indirectly The direct manner of scandall is when the Act is euill in it selfe Thus the Act of Dauids murther was scandalous And this kind of scandall is no way excusable being euill ratione obiecti which is properly sinne The Indirect scandall is seene in Acts which are in their owne nature good or at least not euill but yet because either in respect of time or place or of some other Circumstance the act doth occasionally fall out to be scandalous as did the eating of things offered vnto Idols which was therfore forbidden being a sin either more or lesse according to the diuerse affections of the Offender For this indirect scandall may happen to be after two sorts sometime without the intention of the Agent who hath no meaning to giue any such offence of which kind we may reckon the fact of Saint Peter when he did so partially apply himselfe vnto the Iewes to the scandall of the Gentiles And this we call the lesse sinne The other maner of indirect scandall is that which sometimes proceedeth from the wicked intent in the Scandalizer and such was the sinne of many Heretikes who would vse Fasts and other Ceremonies of deuotion and austerity to draw disciples after them and to seduce men from the truth of Christ. Thus much in respect of the partie Agent SECT IIII. Our 2. Subdiuision of Actiue scandall in respect of persons offended either weake strong The second Subdiuision hereof is in respect of the persons that are offended for it is either perfectorum hominum of men throughly grounded or pusillorum of weake and more simple Concerning the Perfect the Stumbling blocke is on their part that gaue scandall albeit the parties that are offended are not thereby scandalized that is not so offended as to stumble and fall And thus it may be said that Peter did scandalize Christ himselfe when wishing Christ to fauour himselfe and not to die he receiued that answer from Christ Satan thou art a scandall vnto me For albeit this motion proceeded from a good and most friendly intent in Saint Peter who was the speaker for it was onely that Christ should fauour himselfe for the preseruation of his life yet did Christ discerne therein a wicked purpose of the suggester the diuell for the which cause Christ called Peter Satan because in Peters seeking to hinder the death of Christ Satan sought to hinder mans redemption But Christ preferring mans saluation before his owne life taught vs by his owne example to deale with all such scandals or blockes which are temptations to hinder vs in our course of Christianitie euen as a man would do with a blocke that lyeth in his way that is to Cast it behind him for so said Christ in his answer Get thee behind me Satan As for the Pusilli weake ones our Sauiour speaketh in their behalfe saying He that offendeth one of these little ones that beleeueth in me it were better c. Thus much in respect of the Parties SECT V. Our 3. Subsidiuision of Actiue Scandall in respect both of persons and cause either Determined Vndetermined A third subdiuision is both in respect of the cause and of the persons in cases of indifferencie For sometime this case is determined by the Church and sometimes it happeneth not to be publiquely defined When such a matter is once fully concluded by the Church whether in part or in whole so that it doth not euidently appeare to be against the Word of God so far forth it greatly cōcerneth all such persons to conforme themselues thereunto according to the doctrine of S. Paul in a question of Ceremony If any seeme to be contentious we haue no such custome nor the Church of God For indeed all men are bound in conscience to preserue aboue all things the regard of the generall peace of Gods Church before the grieuance of any sort or sect of men Which the Apostle also doth expresly teach saying Giue offence to no man neither to the Iew nor to the Gentle nor which the Apostle addeth in a further speciality to the Church of God Because such a Scandall is so much the more heinous than others by how much more pernicious a thing it is to the endangering of the health of the whole body than to weaken or lame any one limb or member thereof But if the case be either not at all or but onely in part determined by the Church then is there a charitable consideration to be had of other mens consciences who are not perswaded of the lawfull vse of indifferent things Then the generall rule is that so farre as a man may vse indifferent things without offence of others he need not to forbeare them Eate saith the Apostle making no question for conscience sake Why Because God hath giuen man a liberty to vse such things or not to vse them And the Apostles reason is this For the earth is the Lords But in case of offence against others the Rule is Not to eate namely in the behalfe of another mans conscience This was the cause that the Councell of the Apostles giuing libertie to vse such meates as had bene formerly accounted vncleane did notwithstanding make a restraint from eating of Strangled and Bloud and things offered vnto Idols lest thereby they might giue offence to the Iewish Proselites newly called to the faith And for the same cause the Apostle in great circumspection did circumcise Timothie to auoyde the Scandall of the Iewish new Conuerts and lately called to the faith of Christ but at another time would not circumcise Titus lest he might giue way to false Apostles who defended an absolute necessity of Circumcision to the preiudice of the liberty of the Gospell Thus much in respect of both Cause