Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	church_n	communion_n	separation_n	2,767	5	10.7643	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65034	A vindication of the late reverend and learned John Owen D.D. by a friendly scrutiny into the merits, and manner of Mr. Rich. Baxters opposition to twelve arguments concerning worship by the lyturgy, said to be Dr. Owens / by a hearty friend to all good men, and of the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.	Hearty friend to all good men.	1684 (1684)	Wing V511; ESTC R38395	31,983	42

themselves for fathering their mistakes on God I shall a little comment on this Text which would better have become the Observator than Mr. Baxter who will say as much for him and those he calls Innocents and Crucify all alike as under one Condemnation And surely some of these things were so far from being commonly known that they must stand on your only legs for their credit or none at all that I know of You blame them because they blame not themselves for these things and yet tell the world they have blamed themselves and how you can equal their worst Adversaries in a scornful virulent spreading it on their faces Worthy Sir I pray bear with a truth which I hope your piety will make some good use of though it must be now in the after-part I know not any man alive who was less fit to throw these or any other reslections on the Doctor I speak it not in respect of your Abilities which I value and honour but in respect of the want of that good understanding betwixt you while the Dr. lived which was commonly noised I say not where the fault lay I should have been glad to have been a means to cure or conceal it But take things as they are and it will be next a Miracle if this work of yours be not imputed to some ill Original and then 't is like to do little of that good you really intend by it And I think you did not well weigh those words p. 2. of your Preface when you wrote them soil And the Author that I deal with necessitateth me to recite the late fruits of Separation c. Dear Sir do you not tell the world here who and what you had in your Eye You say not here the matter of the Arguments put you on such a necessity but the Author you deal with The Author whom you will have to be no other than the late Reverend Learned and Pious Dr. Owen No doubt but Arguments be they what they will must have an Author But if they had been ascribed to some other Author as your words import there had been no such necessity on you to recite the late fruits of Separation and what follows Some of the pretended Errours considered as they are fixed in a Numerical Order and ascribed to D.O. THis is a Task Sir that must be done with great Caution not only with regard to your Answers or your Person but the subject which puts the hilt in the hand of him that writes in its Countenance but the point to him who shall be so daring as to offend against it But I hope I shall do nothing lyable to exception for I shall not undertake any thing against the Lyturgy or Communion thereby only fairly consider how far you have justly fixed those Errours on the Author of the Arguments which you call Dr. Owens Now Sir I shall not take it for granted that your Edition in Print is exactly a true Copy of the Autograph nor will or can you your self assirm with any ground how far it is metamorphosed by that time it arrived to your hands therefore I shall think it reasonable to put the best constructions that equity will allow on the disadvantaged side Only I must tell my Reader my Order that he may know which is which The Author of the Arguments words are in the common letter with these notes at the left hand of the line Mr. Baxters in a different letter and mine in the common letter except now and then a special word Position It is not lawful for us to go to and joyn in publick Worship by the Common-Prayer because that Worship itself according to the rule of the Gospel is not lawful You answer 1. I shall use the same method that he hath used and first give you my Positions and then the supposed matter of fact and then consider his Arguments Posit It is not only lawful but a duty for those that cannot have better publick Worship without more hurt than benefit and are near a competent Parish Minister to go to and joyn in publick Worship performed according to the Lyturgy and in Sacramental Communion And for those that can have better to joyn sometimes with such Parish Churches when their forbearance scandalously seemeth to signify that they take such communion for unlawful and would so tempt others to the same accusation and uncharitable Separation The History of the matter of Fact must be premised for the right deciding of the cause which is as followeth I shall first say somewhat of the Authors Position and then of yours The Authors Position as you Print it consists of a Position and also the reason or ground of it And I find the reason exceeding the limits of what was to be proved which makes it look not like Dr. Owens But to take it as it is the Position if it is not lawful for us to go and joyn in publick Worship by the Common-Prayer He doth not say it is unlawful for any and for ought you know this us whom he concerned in it might be a very few to whom this Manuscript was imparted and they might be under such Circumstances as your own resolutions oft in print would discharge from that Worship as a Duty But you may reply that the reason of the Position gives no countenance to such a restriction And I say so too but seeing they agree no better in your Edition what must be done in the case But to have recourse first to the Errata ay to the Author too but as you have ordered the matter non sunt inventi is a good return for the Author was but is not and the Errata never was nor could be And therefore in my Opinion if the Position be of a better Countenance than the ground of it let us take that but if the Reason be of a righter make than the Position let us take that for the Authors The reason as large as it is is expresly inclusive of the Common-Prayer only And therefore considering that all the Arguments are according to the Authors profession subservient to this Position and the ground of it and otherwise are exuberant or impertient I conclude you had not sufficient reason to say as you do p. 2. of your Postscript That Dr. O. or the Author saith that all Lyturgies usuch are such false Worship and not the English only no nor to say that it was his meaning But farther I conceive the Author may not yea doth not mean by these words because that Worship itself is not lawful that it is simply unlawful which must render it so at all times and to all Persons under what circumstances soever but that taken with all its modes as well as matter and the manner severity and universality of its imposing it is so Beside it is not said that according to the rule of the Gospel it is unlawful but according to the rule of the Gospel it is not lawful which