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	rome_n	true_a	2,865	5	5.6178	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78421	The account audited and discounted: or, a vindication of the three-fold diatribee, of [brace] 1. Supersition, 2. Will-worship, 3. Christmas festivall. Against Doctor Hammonds manifold paradiatribees. / By D.C. preacher of the Word at Billing-Magn. in Northamptonshire.	Cawdrey, Daniel, 1588-1664.	1658 (1658)	Wing C1621; Thomason E1850_1; ESTC R209720	293,077	450

to the third Commandment a taking of Gods Name in vain which is much manifested by every creature But I believe the Doctor will laugh at such old Divinity and were it not for the ill consequences thereof would easily make them no sins excluding them out of the Decalogue which would be a brave doctrine to gratifie the Ranters If the Doctor cannot or but hardly tell to what Commandment of the Decalogue to reduce those Intemperances they will easily believe and plead they are no sins But the Doctor shall be no Catechist no Casuist or Confessor of mine that holds any thing a sin not forbidden by the Law and so is unable to resolve me against which Commandment the Intemperate use of the Creature offends I have heard some of no mean pretence to Piety excuse some of their party that have been drunk They have but taken a little too much of the Creature I wonder not the Doctor is so favorable to the Riotous part of his Festival when thus he glosses of sins and Commandments But he gives another instance That sort of lying or false speaking which is no way hurtful or no way intended to be hurtful to the neighbor He means the jeasting lye to which he might have added the officious lye which is helpful to the neighbor without hurting any man If no body be hurt by these the truth it self is hurt and that will be hurtful to the speaker what ever it be to the neighbor There are many more of these instances belike and by Papists are called but Venial sins with whom how near he complies in these cases let him consider Here again p. 36. n. 12. the Doctor speaks of the unlawfulness of Ceremonies and uncommanded worship together as if they were both equally by us judged unlawful But in stead of rectifying a mistake he makes one He hath not considered this one thing that whatsoever is not forbidden is lawful not whatsoever is not commanded is unlawful These words if referred to Circumstances are both wayes true but referred to worship both wayes false whatsoever Circumstance of worship is not forbidden is lawful but whatsoever worship is not commanded is unlawful as was said above ad p. 33. n. 7. And then uncommanded worship if it be a sin and unlawful being forbidden by some Commandment and all the other nine renouncing it it must but without crowding be reduced to the second Commandment or to none My answer therefore is ready to his questions 1. That many n. 13. yea most of our Divines have said as fully as I have done that voluntary uncommanded worship is expresly against the second Commandment meaning against the sense of that Commandment 2. They that have referred it thither have given as cogent reasons for it as the Doctor himself hath done when he glossed the sense of the second Commandment to be this That God must be worshipped in a manner peculiar to him and appointed by him Whence it may be argued and concluded that worship not appointed that is not commanded by him is forbidden by the second Commandment In his answer to my second proof he is very brief and very obscure and deceives us by a general n. 14. p. 37. That all Additions to the Rule of worship are not Superstition But I say all uncommanded worship is an Addition to the Rule of worship and so Superstition and sinful He is as short to the third n. 15. Worship of Angels is forbidden by a positive command and so must needs be sinful but the doing of what is not commanded is not a sin This last is a meer delusion for if he speak of Circumstances or Ceremonies as he calls them the doing of them is not a sin but if he speak of worship the doing of what is not commanded is a sin as himself hath often confessed And when I added in the close of the third proof That they that worship Angels p. 37. n. 16. do not urge it as a Commandment of God I intended it as a prevention to his objection or assertion That the Dogmatizers did pretend a Commandment of God and that indeed was Superstition and allowed scarce any other possible to a Protestant He answers He never doubted but there were other sins beside Dogmatizing c. But he should have said Other kindes of Superstition beside that of Dogmatizing As he sayes The murtherer is a sinner though he teach it for a Doctrine that it is lawful to kill his brother So he is Superstitious that places more vertue in things then God or nature hath put in them And he is Superstitious that addes new worship to the Rule of worship though neither of then be Dogmatizers to teach it for Doctrine or a Commandment of God c. And though he oblige not as from God any other man to do the like As he speaks because he goes against express precept Thou shalt not adde to the word or Rule of worship Lastly I said if Will-worship be innocent Rome is justified in her rabble of Superstitious worship n. 17. c. He answers to this effect If it be true that the worship at Rome is really Superstitious he undertook not to justifie Rome or any other Churches in their worship c. But the Church of England c. This is like the rest a meer diversion for the question is whether Will-worship of any Church Rome or England be justifiable and he sayes if it be true that the worship at Rome is really Superstitious doubtingly he undertook not to justifie it and yet justifies Will-worship to be as innocent as the Free-will-offerings without any distinction And this may serve for the third discovery of causes of his mistakes The last was That he takes for granted p. 38. n. 1. that a Church or person hath power to institute and observe worship not commanded of God For which he offers this probation n. 3. Whatsoever is in it self perfectly free or lawful by the Law of God that a Church or particular person hath power to institute and observe But so is the Christmas Festival ergo I answer first to the proposition it offends in leaving out the chief term in the question viz. Worship and should run thus whatsoever worship is sure or lawful c. And then that it begs the very question that a Church hath power to Institute worship which is denied by me and the Doctor himself Then to the Assumption it should thus be propounded But Christmas Festival is a worship free and lawful But this again is acknowledged by the Doctor to be false who denies to make it a new worship but a Circumstance of worship Is not this a probation unbeseeming the Doctors learning n. 4. which his three considerations will no way support For first the Church hath no power to Institute nor the Christian to Observe any worship not commanded of God 2. The Christian may freely do what is prescribed by the Church in

hear 3. These practices of Abstinence c. abstracted from the errour of dogmatizing but yet made a part of Worship as by Papists they are have they not a shew of Wisdom in them and yet are odious to God The Doctor still layes all the crime upon dogmatizing which may be abstracted from them and yet the things sinful and unlawful as now we see n. 16. The worshipping of Angels supposed now a corolary of the Philosophy ver 8. said to be all one and the same Superst s 7 that also hath a shew of Piety in humility Now suppose this abstracted from the error of dogmatizing will the Doctor say this man practises a special piece of humility And hath not this humility thus impious as he said an influence upon the Abstinences following Does not he that with the Gnosticks abstains religiously from meats and marriage practice humility as well as self-denial and may not the humility in both be equally vitious in a will-devised Worship sure the placing of Religion or worship in those Abstinences is as criminal as the worshipping of Angels both being forbidden by God There is only one * Vnless that the n. 19. is twice p. 121. n. 20. thing more in this Section worth taking notice of the rest being but a contention about words 1. That he is by me charged with presumption in changing the text from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which though he desire my pardon for which is not usuall yet he seemes not to take it well All I shall say to it is but this That as it is presumtion in an Interpreter to alter the reading of the Scripture text having no ancient Copy to favour it so it may seem an itch of singularity to make a Criticisme to help to confirm that which he believes to be false as he does Will-worship Sect. 12. and which will not advantage his cause if it were granted to be the true reading Yet still he is at it Again If they had the least degree of Piety in them reading somewhat of Piety then that was in this respect c. p. 123. n. 3. when he hath of acknowledged they had onely a shew as above and being nothing but the Gnostick Abstinences as he will have it he cannot imagine them to have the least degree of Piety in them As for the particle p. 121. n. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omitted by him his defence is easily broken I know not why he should neglect it in his paraphrase for to that place my exception lies unless it were to colour his reading the better Which things have some true c. For it were no good sense regarding the Apostles scope to say which things have indeed some true notion of Wisdom or Piety c. This were to commend them and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be not an extenuating but an amplyfying particle But enough of this Sect. 8 9. That the last part of the verse not sparing the body c. IN the eighth Section nothing is excepted to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 123. n. 4. and in the ninth nothing but a strife of words in a point beside the main business Whether the Abstinences were well comprehended under free-will-offerings and whether they may be called positive things Wherein I shall not contest to swell this Discourse but leave the Doctor to his own opinion though much might be said therein onely these things might be said to shew the difference 1. The Doctor understands these Abstinences of the Gnosticks detesting of marriage p. 122. n. 2. making it damnable c. sure such are not comprehended under Free-will-offerings 2. These Abstinences are condemned by the Apostle as destructive whereas those Free-will-offerings were allowed and commendable 3. The Free-will-offerings were by him made parts of Worship but I think he will not say so of the Abstinences from meats and marriage If he should I would say he is nearer the Gnosticks then I was the Epicureans who pretended them to be as he does here acts of voluntary oblations or voluntary Worship and so acceptable to God Had they not defamed marriage and brought in those abominable filthinesses the Doctor and they might have shaken hands Yea in making Abstinence from marriage a part of Worship and a state of greater perfection then marriage pronounced honourable in all by the Apostle both they and he do implicitly defame marriage Offering to God a free-will-offering of abstinence c. p. 119. n. 5. p. 123. n. 4. n. 5. That the Doctor makes fasting and Virginity or self-denial in matter of meats and marriage a part of Worship may appear 1. By the Phrases he uses in commending of it Designing it to the honour of God looking on it as that which will be acceptable to God though not commanded and as such dedicating it to God this sure will be a Free-will-offering This was spoken of Fasting but then he addes The same is as visible of Virginal chastity c. That is so designed to the honour of God so acceptable to God so dedicated to God All which imply the things are put into a Religious state and made Holy Abstaining for Religion or Piety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 133. n. 19. So Salmeron p. 146. n. 21. p. 123. n. 4. and parts of Worship 2. That he calls them voluntary Free-will-offerings which confessedly were parts of Worship 3. That here as hereafter he gives it the title of greatest perfection Now to place perfection in things which God never placed in them is a species of Superstition as was discoursed in the former Tract But the Doctor to gratifie me will throw a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an apple of contention before me which he is very good at having thrown abroad more such apples of contention then almost any man of late except but J. G. That such the Abstinences * We speak of those Gnostick abstinences not of such as he will fain may he that they safely and fitly may be comprehended under the selfe-denials and Free-will-offerings He instances in two particulars Fasting and Virginal chastity That these are or may be acts of self-denial is true that is when God calls for them otherwise they are not acts of that self-denial which our Saviour requires as the first lesson in his school Fasting is then acceptable when God calls for Fasting Isa 22.12 by either some publique or private and personal occasion and yet then is not a Free-will-offering as being then necessary nor a part of Worship but an help to Worship as our Divines generally hold But for a man to set apart dayes of Fasting twice a week as the Pharisee or oftner as Papists as an Act of Religion and Worship of God when God by no just occasion calls for it is no acceptable service of God but rather displeasing and abominable as prescribing self-devised Worship Say the same of Virginity or single life either God

then they are either both Religious Feasts and parts of Worship of humane institution and both unlawful or if they be both but circumstances of Worship they are nothing to the purpose which is of uncommanded Worship not of uncommanded Circumstances of Worship And that they went beyond their commission in making it an annual Religious Feast I hinted by saying that neither Solomon nor Zerubbabel did make theirs so for ought we read n. 14. Here sayes he are the Symptomes again of a desperate cause that fain would catch at some supports but is forsaken of all His evidences are all too short 1. That Judas c. ordain'd it should be kept thus from year to year is partly true but not evident they kept it thus that is as a Religious Feast but in mirth and gladness or if they did the question is which the Doctor must not beg whether they did well or no the Negative whereof is proved above 2. It 's not evident it was so observed as a Religious Feast by the Jews in Christs time it might be as a civil Feast 3. Nor is it evident that though Christ was present in the Temple at the Feast time he approved and confirm'd it If it was onely a civil Feast it is nothing to the purpose though he approved it as he did the wedding Feast John 2. If it was a Religious Feast and so made a part of Worship Christ would not approve it because they that did so institute or so observe it went beyond their commission As for those learned men that interpreted it of Solomons or Zerubbabels Dedication p. 280. n. 15 as they certainly erred in so doing as I proved so they mistook in making of them annual for the reason by me given they might make an extraordinary day of thanksgiving for some special mercy as a day of Humiliation for some judgement felt or feared for then God calls to those duties but to make either of them Annual and perpetual I desire to see their commission And this may answer the Doctors demand n. 16. Supposing those two were never observed but once why might they not as lawfully be celebrated often or annually If the first offended not by being super statutum how could the second or hundreth repetition render it criminous I shall but demand of him supposing Jehoshaphat in an exigent called and made a solemn day of Humiliation why might he not have made it annual to posterity if the first offended not how the annual repetition of it Answer one and answer both The resolution is given above A Magistrate may upon a special occasion appoint a Feast or Fast but to make those dayes perpetually Religious Feasts or Fasts he hath no commission And if he make a civil Feast perpetuall it 's nothing to our debate Let not the Doctor snarle at this answer I shall boldly say n. 17. if King Lucius never so long ago or any other King had kept Christmas day or Good-friday as Religious and parts of Worship as Papists do now and the Doctor with them I should have written Triplicem Diatriben against them as now I do against the Doctor But if he had made them no more then Circumstances of Worship I should never have used my pen against him That Christ was present at the Feast as a Feast n. 18. is also begged but nor is nor can be proved the text says not he was at the Feast Vide Junium contr 3. l. 4 a. 17. an 6. Pelican in 1 Mac. 4. but Jesus walked in the Temple Now take the Doctors inferences or Interrogations Was not that an evidence of Christs approbation Jesus walked in the Temple ergo he approved the Festival take another like it Paul hasted to be at Jerusalem at Pentecost ergo he approved and confirmed that Festival after Christ had abolished it and then adde would Paul have been present at an unlawful superstitious detestable feast c. and never have reprehended it so the Doctor argues Christ was at the Feast ergo if unlawful he would have reprehended it But he doth not reprehend it ergo he approved it But first let him not beg Christ was at it as a Religious Feast 2. Let him remember his own Rule There is small virtue in an argument from Scripture Negativè p. 244. n. 12. 3. Nor was it any more scandalous for Christ to be in the Temple at the time of the Feast then for Paul and other Apostles to be there at Pentecost and other times when Temple and Festivals were voided by Christs death If I had made such loose inferences how would the Doctor have insulted He cannot but know that my answer is made by very learned men over whom the Doctor would not thus triumph n. 20. p 28. I could now return him his own words a little inverted What if Jesus walked in the Temple on the Feast day doth it therefore follow that he approved c. This is a new kinde of arguing still c. Marriage n. 21. he says might be approved to be Religious If he would engage in a new controversie This indeed if proved would help to countenance his Virginity or Caelibate to be Religious and a part of Worship as Papists make it But why Religious because there are Prayers and Sacrament c. at the Celebration of it But this might turn all Civil Feasts into Religious when those or some of those services are premised to them Yea our ordinary meals when Prayers for a blessing before and Praises after are used would be then turn'd into Religious Feasts But he says The onely difference between a Civil and a Religious Feast is that in the one the publick services of the Church some or all of them are used adding Festival diet also whereas the other is made up onely of the latter But enough of this afore ad p. 277. n. 1. His question then is easily answered n. 22. Can the services of the Church being added make that criminous which was innocent before make that which was but civil before sacrilegious and impious That was not the question but whether the services of the Church make a civil Feast Religious And whether beside Superstition and Will-worship Riot and revellings do not pollute his most sacred Festival This rarity the Doctor was acquainted with before but he would forget it to give me a slur in the eyes of his Reader For the Feast of Purim Hest 9. There are many answers given by learned men 1. That it was a civil Feast which appears probable by the text they made it a day of Feasting and Joy c. without any mention of Religious services as I said above see ad p. 277. n. 1. But the Doctor instead of demonstrating will needs suppose p. 282. n. 24. That a day of rest of assembly of feasting and gladness sending of portions such as in a sacrifical Feast will to any unpartial Reader pass for an indication of