Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	case_n	common_a	law_n	2,310	5	4.9938	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A53999	Jerub-baal, or, The pleader impleaded being an answer to Mr. Croftons (lately published) plea for communion with the Church under her present corruptions, &c., entituled Reformation not separation by way of humble remonstrance thereunto : shewing, that non-communion with the Church of England in her liturgy and common-prayer, in those that (yet) joyn with her in the substantial ordinances and instituted worship of Christ, is no schism, and that such are unjustly called separatists : in a letter / written by T.P. for the private satisfaction of a friend, and by him published for common benefit.	T. P.	1662 (1662)	Wing P112; ESTC R7299	36,119	58

a Not holding of the Head the thing there charged upon those Circumcised Sects and as justly chargeable upon all Judaizing Christians who contend for the Introduction and Retention of the Antiquated Jewish Rites and Ceremonies in the Christian Church 1 Joh. 4.3 Qui negat Christum in Carne venisse Ive est Antichristus Tertul lib. de carne Christi for this is virtually to deny that the Son of God is come in the flesh He being the Body and Substance presigured and shaddowed thereby This is Real Antichristianism Enough to turn a Bethel into a Bethaven Now who in England are most Criminal herein who most exposed to the Apostolick Censure let an Altar and Organ and other Romish Reliques and Jewish Popish Ceremonies witnesse Ah * Judg. 6 32. Jerub-baals are rare in our age Is this Reformation Yes such another as was that of King Henry the Eighth when he had renounced the Popish Jurisdiction but retained the Ceremonies whom Luther that great German-Reformado upbraided with a He hath killed the Popes Body but saved his Soul Yet 2. That the Church is Gods Ark of Salvation and therefore not to be totally and universally forsaken upon perill of inevitable Ruine is a received principle with me The Church is both an Ark of Safety and an Ark of Plenty It saves both from drowning and starving Noahs Ark saved from the Deluge all that were in it and none but those The Ark under the Law contained in it three things viz Aarons Rod the Tables of Testimony the Pot of Manna Heb. 9.4 This Ark represented the Church Aarons Rod Discipline the Tables of Testimony the Word and the Pot of Manna the Sacrament Where is either Soul-Safety or Soul-Plenty to be had but within the Verge and Limits of the Church This is the only Ark that can land us safe at the Heavenly Haven the Land of Rest so that Vniversal Separation must needs forestall Salvation But enough of that Generalia non pungunt CONSID. 3. Page 37. Scandal is an Argument of no strength when pleaded to supersede or condemn a Positive duty Remons 1. Who denies that But Communion with the Church of England in her Common-Prayer it being none of Christs Instituted Worship is not as yet proved to be a Positive duty What Communion hath light with darkness 2 Cor. 6.14.16 But 2. Scandal is an Argument of strength when pleaded in matters of Indifferency by his own confession P. 39. now such I hope he will grant which I cannot as yet do our Liturgy and Common-Prayer to be unless he say as a Reverend Bishop one of the greatest in this Nation once upon occasion said to me who when I humbly desired to know wherein the weak were to be indulged was pleased to resolve it into Things Indifferent and I assuming that a Liturgy or Common-Prayer is a Thing Indifferent replyed 'T is not Indifferent when imposed And then sarewell Christian Liberty for there is nothing Indifferent in Actu exercito or when imposed But Right Reverend Fathers c. what a wofull case is this You tell us that in things Indifferent we are to indulge the weak and yet by reason of your Impositions you leave nothing Indifferent far be it from You to render that Necessary by Your Law which you grant should be left Arbitrary by Gods Own There is an Indulgency you grant allowed us by the Law of God Rom. 14.13 15 21. 1 Cor. 8.9 13. and yet how are we abridged of it by the Laws of Men Is this Charity or is it Sacriledge Now 3. VVhy may not Scandal accrue from Mr. Croftons Communion in as well as from his Conformity to the Common-Prayer May not a weak Brother hereby suffer in the tortures of a Scrupulous Conscience being racked between his own doubts and the Offenders Practice Or may not this administer to him an occasion of sinning either in his condemning of that which may be Lawful to Mr. Crofton seeming Vnlawful to him or in doing what yet he condemns or doubteth of being animated thereunto by Mr Croftons Practice Or may not this tend to the hardening of men in sin And is not this Real Scandal being Factum quo alius deterior redditur Amandus Polanus Synt. Theol. l. 6. c. 3. I dare say many Non-Conforming Ministers who have judged a set Form of Prayer to be Lawful in it self and therefore a thing which might be used without any trespass upon either the Law of Piety the Word or the Law of Purity Conscience who yet would have totally declined it upon the account of the Law of Charity fearing least they should destroy him or them with their meat for whom Christ died Rom. 14.15 Now 't were strange if this were an Argument strong enough against Conformity and yet an Argument of no strength against Communion But Scandal in this case is Offence taken only not given This is as Common as the Prayer it self but 't is assumed gratis However 4. Admit it were scandalum accep um an offence taken and groundless Shall there be no Indulgency shewed in that case What shall we think of the Christians in the Primitive times the weaker had no cause or ground to be offended with the stronger about their Indifferent use of mean Christ having purchased for them an absclute liberty therein yet what strict laws are by St. Paul enacted against the scandalizing of such and is it nor his own Personal Resolve in the case to become a perpetual Debtor to 〈◊〉 Bell rather than a Debtor to the law of Charity 1 Cor. 8 13. This was my Reply to that Reverend Bishop when he was pleased to assert that the weak are not at all to be indulged where there is no cause or ground of offence and if there be any real ground of offence how can they be called weak strange Diocesian Doctrine CONSI 4. I am not without the Caution and Conduct of the seber Godly Learned Promoters Purjuers of a Perfect Compleat Reformation Remon 1. 'T is strange Mr. Crofton should argue from Communion amongst Distinct Churches against the present Non-Communion of Particular Members of one the same Church since that which is between the other Reformed Churches and this of England is a Communion not by way of Participation or Joynt-Fellowship c. but of Profession of the fame true Religion only which I have here owned and asserted 2. There are indeed Liturgies used though not imposed in some of those Reformed Churches But though they are not Mala peruse yet this proves them not Authentique more than the Priests and Levites Sacrificing in the High Places 1 Chr. 16.39 proves those Lawful why then may they not be looked upon as Spots in their Feasts God conniving at those in Christians as He did at Polygamy amongst the Jews which yet he did not approve of 3. Mr. Croftons Instance in the Primitive Non-Conformists is wide of that of the Modern for our Communion in the Liturgy and Common-Prayer were a Relapse and Return into I am loath to say an Egyptian darkness after a Noon-day Sunshine of the Gospel and that by Mr. Croftons own grant after Sacred and Solemn Ex ulsion thereof now Prom●ters of Reformation are no Patterns of a Retrogradation ah this may humble Englands declining Sun lengthned Shaddowe Jer. 4.6 'T is Low Water in the Sanctuary out English Ark is retarded in Her Voyage Heaven-ward Wind bound by Ser-Forms c. saint Gailes of the Spirit perswaded I am were those Worthies now alive they would be loth to become Baals either Advocates or Adherents 4. What does Mr. Crofton think of the thousands of Non Conforming Ministers in our days who in my mind deserve the name of Church as well as any Papal Conclave or Prelatical Convocation in the world But however 5. I must not draw every Example into a Rule Judaizing Peters I must not pattern by Mr. Crofton and his Liturgy-Communicant-Fellow Presbyters I respect and reverence but he he a MOSES be he an AARON I have no warrant to follow him any further then he is a Follower of Christ 1 Cor. 11.1 Now Dear Sir The good Spirit of God be your Convoy to guid you through the Syrtes of this World in a straight course Canaan-ward that you may not split upon the Rock either of Church-rending Separation on the one nor Church-Adulterating-Superstition on the other hand till he at length land you sale within the Vail T. P. FINIS

thankfullnesse under the reception of an Extraordinary Blessing and not as an Act of Piety Necessity or Worship And though I shall not at this time at least go so far as some namely to assert that the Consecrated Bread purposely set before Superstitious Kneelers Protestants and the supposed Transubstantiated Bread purposely placed before Idolatrous Kneelers the Papists is the same In Esse Ad. rabili yet two things I shall say First A Papists Idolatrous Kneeling before the Bread supposed to be Transubstantiated is in some respect more Excusable than a Protestants Superstitious Kneeling before the Bread being onely Consecrated for his Creed doth though not Justifie yet in part excuse his gesture Did I beleeve that the Sacramental Bread is no sooner Consecrated than really Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ I should think I should greatly ●●n if I did not forthwith exhibit Worship thereunto since as the O thodox-Learned generally grant there is Adoration and Worship due to Christ even as Man viz by vertue of the Personal Vnion of his Humane with his Divine Nature Secondly The gesture of Kneeling at the Sacrament c. in the Church of England having Necessity placed in it else why is it imposed and not seft Arbitrary yea and holinesse and worship too as its * The Arch-Bishop of Spalato Dr. Burgesse Dr. Mortoun Paybody c. learned Patrons inform us and so becoming a dangerous piece of Superstition and Will-Worship I am warranted to withdraw and refuse Communion with her therein by a Supersedeas of Mr. Croftons own grant viz in case of Real-Inevitable Necessity with this assurance that God will have mercy and not sacrifice The Sacrament is a Priviledge but Superstition is Sin now I may often warrantably wave a Priviledge but never am I warranted to commit the least Sin and therefore for fear of Poyson I deny my self Food Alas Mr. Croftons Instances in Stinking Fish c. Pudled water c. An Vncleane Vessel c. yeeld not the least satisfaction to me what if there be poyson in the dish though never so well garnished My Dear Friend The case is very hard but what shall I do If I must dye let it be by famine as soon as by poyson If I must be fourty years without a Passeover even as long as the Israelites were in the Wildernesse without theirs The will of the Lord be done I had rather be in the Wildernesse without it than go back to Egypt for it while I know that I am in the way towards Canaan not so getting St. Bernards Maxim Non privatio sed contemptus damnat The want of a Sacrament is my Affliction but the Contempt of it onely under that want is my Sin only my prayer is that God would forgive them Who make the Lords offering to be abhorred Thus Sir I hope you are by this time satisfied in the case namely That Non-Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy and Common-Prayer as also in the Lords Supper under the present method of Administration in those who yet joyn with her in Prayer Praise The Word Preached Parts of True Solemn Divine Worship as you and I do is no breach of duty but a duty the one being no True Divine Worship but Will-Worship the other being though a Substantial Part of Worship yet Adulterated and extreamly Corrupted Worship therefore no SCHISM which was the thing charged Now give me leave before I conclude this to produce my Warrant and Protection in the case from the Church of Englands own Canon and Constitution namely the 9th made in the year 1603. Entituled Authors of Schisms in the Church of England censured the words whereof are these viz Whosoever shall hereafter separate themselves from the Communion of Saints as it is approved by the Apostles Rules in the Church of England and combine themselves together in a new-Brotherhood accounting the Christians who are conformable to the Doctrine Government Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England Prophane and unmeet for them to joyn with in Christian Profession let them be excommunicated Ipso facto c. Now 1. I separate in case of Real-Inevitable Necessity only therefore not contrary to the Apostles Rules 2. Mine is not Positive Separation therefore no Combination in a New-Brotherhood 3. I am not only a Professor of the same Faith which is all the Canon seems to require but a Partaker in the same Ordinances though not in all with those who are Conformable c. and therefore that very Canon which censureth Schismaticks protecteth Me. Now Honoured Sir Though I perswade my self that your request is satisfied in the case touching Non-Communion c. Yet cannot I satisfie my self unless I give a brief touch upon Mr. Croftons other Considerations and before I come to them assoile what is objected from the High Places amongst the Israelites A Recocta crambe with him and an ordinary Allegation with all that are of his perswasion in the case in hand Do men complain saith he as they have cause Page 39. That some Roman Rites were retained when this Church was reformed let them consider many pious Kings of Judah have their reforming-Governments stained with a But the High Places were not taken away but the People went thither to worship yet I find not that any God-fearing Israelites who loathed those Reliques of Idolatry ever barred themselves because thereof from Gods Altar and Worship Ans 1. The Retention of Jewish Ceremonies in the Christian Church is God knows a just cause of Complaint since by reason of them the condition of the Christian Church is become more intollerable than was that of the Jewish Infant Church the Jews being subjected to Divine Impositions the Christians oh sad to Humane Presumptions the Arbitrary Lawes and Lusts of Men witnesse Sr. Augustine Ad Januar. Epist 119. c. 19. Item Epist 118. c. 2. 2. If the Retention of Jewish-Popish Ceremonies in the Church of England at first when Reformation was but Early was a just cause of Complaint how much more grievous must the Reduction of them after Sacred and Solemn Expulsion be the First compared to that of the last 20 years being as the Twilight to a clear Sunshine It St. Augustine complained of the intollerable burthensomness of Ceremonies in his dayes as in the places before mentioned what cause have we to complain c. in our dayes For if the first Introduction of them into the Roman Church was a Reduction of Judaisme how like does the Reduction of them into the English Church look to the Introduction of Romanisme what and not complain 3. Mr. Croftons alleadged case of the Israelites and their High Places c. is alass infinitely wide of Ours and therefore I marvel that a man of such Parts as he is should once plead the thing For 1. Though the High-Places of old were even under Reforming Governments both retained and frequented which I deny not yet what makes this against me who dispute not about the Retention

ground though not of Positive yet of Negative though not of Total yet of Partial Separation and Non-Communion in such a case can be no sin therefore no Schism How can Non-Communion be sin there where one cannot communicate without sin unless men will impose or suffer to be imposed upon themselves a Necessity of sinning that which true Piety abhorrs I am not alone here or without the suffrage of the sober-Learned a sufficient protection against the brand of Novelty who say that if a Church be either no true Church See Dr. Cawdrey in his Treatise Entituled Independency a great Schism or so extreamly corrupted that a good Christian cannot hold Communion with it without sin Separation in that case is no Schism but they are the Schismaticks that give the Cause of that Separation Then let the VVorld Judge who in England may most deservedly be branded for Schismaticks On the Contrary Culpable Faulty and sinful Separation from the Church the Schism in question is as I think it is generally described a Causeless Separation from Communion with and participation of Christs instituted Worship in a true Church Sir This premised we shall easily discover what Church-breach Schism or Separation it is that Mr. Crofton chargeth upon those in the Church of England and amongst those my self who under the present Providence though they joyn with her in the Instituted VVorship and Substantial Ordinances of Jesus Christ therein administred by as Prayer Hearing of che Word Preached Singing of Psalms c. yet do not cannot communicate with her in her Liturgy or Common-Prayer as being guilty of a sinful Practice c. 1. 'T is not a breach of the first Vnion viz. That wherein the Elect Gods Chosen Ones are by a true Faith or the Spirit of Faith un-interruptedly indwelling in them conjoyned one with another and all of them with their Publick Head Christ for this as is declared is an utter Impossibility which none but an Arminian Spirit will deny 2. 'T is not a Breach of Communion with the Catholick-Visible Church and her Common Head Christ by vertue of Outward Profession which is called a Catholick and Vniversal Separation for this were not only Schism but Apostacy as hath been said not only a Breach of Church-Vnity but a Voluntary forfeiture of a Church-State an Imputation which my Creed will acquit me from while I professedly own the true Catholick Doctrine of Christ and 〈◊〉 Apostles the Orthodox Fathers Councels Confessors Martyrs in all Ages and the Reformed Churches 3. 'T is not a Breach in the Church either 1. in poynt of Judgment and Opinion nor 2. in poynt of Charity and Affection 1. Not in poynt of Judgment and Opinion for as for Erroneous Principles according to that light God hath given me I abhor them Church-rending Divisions I shall not willingly or wittingly be accessory to never forgeting what Luther said of Caspar Schwenckfield that Church-Incendiaries may kindle a fire here which may burn themselves to all eternity hereafter But if a Dissent in Judgment about matters of Worship or Discipline yea and perchance in Doctrinal poynts too at least Non-Fundamentals from our present Church-Pilots be a Schism I shall not busie my self about either Vindication or Excuse under the Censure but sure I am either Mr. Crofton himself is in this sense a Schismatick or else justly may he be branded for an Apostate 2. Nor in poynt of Charity and Christian Affection Mr. Crofton is no competent Arbitrator in that case God himself is best able to judge who at this day walks charitably who not for my own part I have Charity for all Church-Members understand their Persons not their Corruptions The Law of Piety and the Law of Charity God himself hath married together and whom God hath joyned let no man separate 4. The Breach or Schism then charged must be a Separation from the Church of England not 1 Total since I communicate with her in those Parts of Christs instituted Worship and Ordinances Prayer Hearing c. Nor 2. Positive whilst I turn not Conventicler and embody not into a Party or Convention set up against her Altar against Altar Threshold against Threshold c. But 1. Partial and 2. Negative viz meer Non-Communion with her in her Liturgy or stinted and Set-Forms of Common-Prayer This is the Schism and Separation charged This is the Crime and great Article of Endictment What and is Mr. Crofton turned Accuser of the Brethren Sir Two Things I equally dislike Separation on the one hand and Superstition on the other and what sober Christian will not they being destructive the one to the Vnity the other to the Purity of the Church and the latter not more than the former understand I pray you sinfull Separaiotn Schism in the Church is a Rent and Wound in Christs Body a Crucifying afresh of the Son of God The Schismatical Rendings of the Church by Anabaptists and such like Fanaticks in Germany cost Zealous Luther no little grief and lamentation God forgive those who are known to have been too too guilty of such Sectarian-Cruelty here at home 1 Cor. 1.13 Zech. 13.6 Is Christ divided was a sad Interrogatory What Christ wounded in the house of his friends that 's sad The Voluntary Rending of Christ-Mystical is a sin nothing inferiour in my mind to that of the Jews Crucifying of Christ Personal forasmuch as that it reacheth both Head and Members That then which inclineth me to this attempt is not Consciousnesse to my self of any Schism or sinfull Separation though I perceive you are ready to espouse mine Acculers quarrel in case of non-satisfaction to your enforced request but the prevalent sense as well of your importunity as of mine own innocency This Epistle possibly may seem to be with the City of Myndus lyable to upbraiding the Porch being too big but neither is the premised Introduction larger nor the subsequent discourse more brief than I judged expedient Mr. Croftons Grounds and Reasons urged for Communion with the Church of England in all Acts of worship and consequently in Common-Prayer therein administred by and against Separation or withdrawment from the same are all reduced to four Positions or Argumentative Propositions from which Premises he infers partly the Lawfulness partly the Expediency and partly the indispensable Necessity of the former as the sinfulnesse and unwarrantablenesse the Schism of the latter And those Positions he calls CONSIDERATIONS which come now to be considered CONSID. 1. Page 4. Communion with the Church-Visible in all the Acts I had rather say Parts of Solemn Publique Worship is an Essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath or Lords day and positive indispensable duty of every particular soul called by the name of God to be onely superseded by a reall inevitable necessity with assurance to any that God will have mercy and not sacrifice This is the Major-Proposition of Mr. Croftons great Doom-Argument The Assumption must be this But Communion with the