Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	carriage_n	christian_n	extirpate_v	12	3	16.4195	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34956	The iustification of a sinner being the maine argument of the Epistle to the Galatians / by a reverend and learned divine.; Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli Apostoli ad Galatas. English	Crell, Johann, 1590-1633.; Lushington, Thomas, 1590-1661.	1650 (1650)	Wing C6878; ESTC R10082	307,760	323

Peters offence or fault Legall Ceremonies why abrogated censured publickly and sharply To Gentilize Compulsiō by Exāple To Judaize and the danger thereof A Digression Three Parties of Christians 1. The sincere Christian his Cariage Examples of such 2 The Judaizer his Cariage Examples of this Sect the Cause of it the Effect of it 3. The Gentilizer The diversity of this Sect Their cariage Examples of it The Cause and effect of it Some agreements betweene the Judaizers Gentilizers 1 Both were Christians 2 Both erroneous 3 Both contentious 4. Both malicious 5. Both Tares in Gods field Yet not to bee extirpated The carriage of the sincere Christian towards Sectaries 2. Nor condemn them 3. Nor offend them 4 but to love them Examples of this cariage and in what cases it abateth Judaizers of two sorts 1 Natively Jewes 2 Natively Gentiles who exercised the Ministery for by-respects and are bitterly reproved BUT when I saw The adversative particle but signifies that the carriage of Peter was averse and contrary to the minde of Paul who addressing himselfe to reprove it publickly doth first professe his observance of the fact that hee saw the fault of it and saw withall just cause to reprove it For it had not beene reason to reprove publickly so great a person as Peter by way of heare-say from the bare suggestion of others that therefore the reproof might not seeme unreasonable or inconsiderate hee first declares that hee himselfe saw the fault and tooke speciall notice of it That they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel Walked not uprightly the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. literally footed not uprightly or walked not with an upright foot which he opposeth to their dissimulation mentioned in the former verse because all dissembling is halting and all halting is contrary to walking uprightly And the sincerity or truth of the Gospel was the line or levell whereby they were to walke and according whereto if they did walke their walking would be upright But their conversation was not conformable to the incorrupt and sincere doctrine of the Gospel for they declined from the right path of it halting as it were between the Law and the Gospel leaning one while to the necessity of the Law and another while to the liberty of the Gospel The fault therefore by Paul reproved was that Peters fact might and did prove some hindrance to the progresse of the Gospel while Peter by his overmuch indulgence to the Jewish Christians did endanger the verity and liberty of the Gospel If an offence must needs have beene given one way or other safer it had beene to have offended the Jewish Christians there then to have given those of the Gentiles an occasion to stumble and to question that doctrine which hitherto they had learned for when we are necessitated betweene two scandals the greater is more to be declined then the lesse And besides it was a thing most reasonable that Peter and the rest of the Apostles should at last deale more freely and openly with the Jewish Christians in leading them on by degrees to the sincerity and truth of the Gospel in this particular especially seeing formerly the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem where the offence was most to be feared were sufficiently instructed by Peter and James that the Legall Ceremonies were not necessary to salvation For it was Gods good pleasure that upon his new Covenant the Ceremonies of the old should cease to the end that all Nations both Jewes and Gentiles should bee confederated under one Covenant and be incorporated into one body whereof Jesus Christ should be the Head which could never be done so long as those Ceremonies were of force for while they were in being men could hardly or not at all conceive how that old Covenant could bee antiquated and expired Besides wheresoever there remaine most Ceremonies there is commonly more superstition then true and sound Religion because betweene Ceremony and Verity there is a kind of antipathy This point not being rightly understood the benefit conferred upon us by Christ and the way of the new Covenant in justifying us by faith can never bee rightly conceived as may easily bee collected from this Epistle Wherefore it concerned the rest of the Apostles to afford their assistance unto Paul who chiefly laboured in this that at the least the Jewish Christians might not subduce and separate themselves from conversing and accompanying with their brethren of the Gentiles especially seeing Peter had already practised it before and might have continued alwayes to practise it for to him from Heaven this point was in speciall maner revealed and what grounds soever they were which induced Peter to eat with Cornelius and his family the same were still in force to continue his conversation with the Antiochian Christians who had in like maner received the Holy Ghost Peter therefore should have persisted in conversing with his brethren of the Gentiles whatsoever exceptions the Jewish Christians should take against it or at least should have first notified his intention to the Gentile-Christians that he desired to condiscend a little to the Jewish infirmity that the Gentiles might not bee troubled if for a time he abstayned from their company that he did it not because hee beleft those Ceremonies necessary to salvation but only because his brethren of the Jewes were so perswaded But Peter as it appeares neglected this caution and stoutly dissembled the contrary for which Paul blamed him before them all I sayd unto Peter before them all A circumstance of this reprofe from the place of it that it was publicke Before them all the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. literally before all men or in the presence and audience of all but in sense publickly for these words are all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. before men which is opposed to secretly or privately See Mat. 5.16 and Mat. 6.1 and Mat. 10.33 and Luke 12.8 9. And he therefore spake to him before all because the knowledge of the matter concerned all for it concerned the Gentile-Christians lest they should be troubled with the fact of Peter and thence take occasion of erring and the Jewish Christians it concerned lest they should persist to follow his example and besides this the offence was exemplary and publicke and a publicke offence deserves a publicke reproofe See 1. Tim. 5.20 Yet in reprooving Peter thus publickly Paul offended not against the order of brotherly reproofe in that he first gave him no private admonition because the publicke danger would not then admit that circumstance But he directs his reproof unto Peter only because he was chiefly in fault for he was the authour of that dissembling whereinto others were carried by his example and his Reformation being a person of so eminent authority with all would soon reduce all the rest If thou being a Jew livest after the maner of the Gentiles and not as doe the Jewes The forme of

appeare afterward vers 14. Neither was it dissembled or feigned betweene them to cast a feare upon the believing Jewes in seeing Peter thus reproved as Jerome pretends it but it was serious and reall with intent to reprove not onely the Jewes but Peter also for otherwise Paul should have used one dissimulation wherewith to reprove another seeing the thing it selfe which hee reproved was a dissimulation as afterward it will appeare vers 13. q. d. When I was at Jerusalem Peter reproved not mee either for my Doctrine or for my Conversation but when Peter came to Antioch I reproved him for his Conversation and I condemned a carriage of his not clancularly behinde his back nor generally in tearmes indefinite but particularly and openly even in his presence to his face For I was confident of my authority to reprove him and of my equity in the cause of it which otherwise I should never have done in that manner had I beene conscious to my soule that in poynt of the legall Ceremonies his judgement was contrary to mine For then though his fact had disliked mee I should not have dared to have reproved him openly to his face as knowing that way would availe mee nothing but to make my cause worse and render me odious Because hee was to bee blamed A reason in generall of the former words why hee reproved Peter before his face namely because hee was to bee blamed The Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Literally hee was condemned for so elsewhere the word is alwayes rendred in our last English Translation See 1. John 3.20 21. For hee that reproves another man doth give as it were a judgement or sentence against him which the Greekes call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and wee Blaming or Condemning But really the sense is not preteritively that hee was blamed before Paul reproved him but futurely hee was to bee blamed when Paul did actually reprove him then hee was worthy of reproofe and deserved to bee blamed For many time a Greeke participle passive of the preter tense is in imitation of the Hebrewes put for a Noune verball which the Latine sometime expresseth by the future in dus and wee in English thus is or was to bee so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are saved i. e. which are to bee saved 1. Cor. 1.18 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in them that perish i. e. in them that are to perish 2. Cor. 2.15 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them that are sanctified i. e. them that are to bee sanctified Heb. 10.14 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to bee reserved 2. Pet. 2.4 So heere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee was blamed is rightly rendred hee was to bee blamed q. d. I reproved Peter because concerning some of the legall Ceremonies his carriage was so various and different from it selfe that although in one respect he was to be commended yet in another he was to be blamed VERSE 12. Text. For before that certaine came from James hee did eate with the Gentiles but when they were come hee withdrew and separated himselfe fearing them which were of the Circumcision Sense Certaine i. e. Believing Jewes who were but weake Christians and observers of the legall Ceremonies Did eate Viz. All manner of meates indifferently With the Gentiles i. e. With the Christian Gentiles after their manner and in their company who made no distinction of meats as did the Jewish Christians Withdrew and separated himselfe Viz. From eating with them after their manner and in their company Fearing them i. e. Fearing to offend or grieve them Reason Of the Circumcision i. e. The believing Jewes who yet were observers of Circumcision A more particular reason why hee reproved Peter expressing the fact for which hee was to bee blamed namely because hee knowing that the legall difference of meates was ceased yet withdrew himselfe from eating indifferently all manner of meats in the company of the Gentiles and after their manner and restrained himselfe only to the Jewish meats Comment Peter eates with the believing Gentiles and afterward withdrew from them fearing to offend the believing Jewes who yet cōceived thēselves bound to the Law FOR before that certaine came from James These were by their birth Jewes who had been bred up in the Jewish Religion but by their faith they were Christians but as it seemes so lately converted that they were yet but weake in the faith and therefore continued observers of the Jewish ceremonies These men came to Antioch from Jerusalem while Peter was at Antioch but whether they came thither as Emissaries sent from James or as voluntaries of their owne accord either as spies or for other businesse it appeares not from Scripture Yet from James they are said to come either authoritatively because they might have some direction or addresse from him or locally because they came from the Church at Jerusalem where James was the President or chiefe Pastor He did eate with the Gentiles He did eate i. e. Peter did freely eare any manner of meates though forbidden by the Law of Moses With the Gentiles with the Christian Gentiles in their company after their maner and of their meates altogether as they did eate who observed not the differences of meats nor other legall ceremonies This action of Peter was very commendable for although the Jewes by their Law esteemed it unlawful to eate of some meates supposing themselves thereby polluted because they were forbidden by the Law of Moses yet unto the Christians of all sorts to whom the Law was now expired it was by the Gospel fully allowable to eate of any meate and particularly unto Peter it was most warrantable by reason of his vision of the great sheet wherein were all maner of meates as Beasts creeping things and Fowles which God had cleansed commanding him to kill and eate See Acts 10.11.12.13 But when they were come hee withdrew and separated himselfe When those Christian Jewes were come from Jerusalem to Antioch Peter who before did there eate with the Christian Gentiles did then privily withdraw and separate himselfe from the company and from the fare of the Christian Gentiles carrying himselfe as a strict observer of the Legall Ceremonies and particularly of the differences of meates This action in Peter was the thing that was blameable and for which hee was by Paul reproved for by this fact Peter might and did very much blemish the truth and sincerity of the Gospel by endangering the liberty therof whilest by his ouermuch indulgence to the Jewes who were the minor part he seemed to betray the liberty of the Gospel and to give occasion of scruple to the Christian Gentiles who were far the major part and far more considerable Fearing them of the circumcision The occasion of Peters fact in withdrawing himselfe from eating with the Christian Gentiles namely because he feared those Christian Jewes of the Circumcision who came from James and were yet but weake Christians and were consequently earnest