Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	king_n	law_n	lord_n	4,135	5	3.8427	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41330	The questions between the conformist and nonconformist, truly stated, and briefly discussed Dr. Falkner, The friendly debate &c., examined and answered : together with a discourse about separation, and some animadversions upon Dr. Stillingfleet's book entituled, The unreasonableness of separation : observations upon Dr. Templers sermon preached at a visitation in Cambridge : a brief vindication of Mr. Stephen Marshal.	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.	1681 (1681)	Wing F962; ESTC R16085	105,802	120

the Church and Worship of God to the end of the world would have hindered our Pocket Bibles Individua sunt Infinita But for significant Ceremonies all the Mosaical Ceremonies were set down to the pins of the Tabernacle and if God had liked Ceremonies as we do he could have set down twice as many as Popery affords 8ly These mystical ceremonies are external worship as I said before but so are not circumstances Mr. Falkner evades these Texts in Deut. 12 c. telling us as the Author of the Er. Deb. that the Text concern'd the Judicial Law as well This I have spoken to before Also he tells us That divers things referring to the worship of God Pag. 360. were allowably under the Jewish dispensation ordered as matters of decency and expediency by humane prudence But Sir this reaches not our Question we are inquiring for a warrant for such Ceremonies as your Preface and our Question from thence treat of else I yielded before that the Jews were not determined in every particular circumstance But M. Falkner refers us to a former Section where he had instanced in such things At p. 311. I find there he begins First With the discumbing gesture at the Passover which they changed from standing To this I spake before 2ly He instanceth in the white garments that the Levites did wear 1 Chron. 15.27 For which there was no direction given in the word yet the Scripture speaks of the allowableness of these Levitical garments Answ 1. But the Question is Whether these Levitical garments were ordained by men to signifie a spiritual duty they owed to God and were to stir up their dull minds to their duty and to edifie them If not they reach not the Question but of this not a word in Scripture Sanctius 1 Sam. 2. conceives and others with him that these were not holy garments which Samuel while a child did wear and David also wore when he danced before the Ark who was not of the Priests Order And certainly they knew the garments of the Levites to be according to the mind of God else they would not have dared to have used them when God had so lately made a breach for want of due order they had ways to know Gods mind that we have not 2. For the Levites 1st They were of the same Tribe with the Priests 2ly Their work was about the holy things of God as was the Priests 3ly There was nothing determined about the apparel or garments of the Levites by God Numb 8. neither for matter whether linnen or woollen nor for the colour 4ly But yet black colour was not I conceive allowable about the Temple worship The bread of Mourners Hos 9.4 was but unclean hence the Text Deut. 26.14 and that of Aaron Levit. 10.19 when there was such a cause of mourning did not eat God required cheerfulness in his worship and service Deut. 12.7 Whiteness was the colour that betokeneth cheerfulness in all sorts of persons Eccles 9.8 Let thy garments be always white We find a threatning against the Chemarims Zephan 1.4 those black Priests Atrati because clothed in black So Schindl Pagn Buxtorf Vatablis Drusius Jun. Tremel God had appointed white in his Priests and Worship Lay all these together and we may see good reason why the Levites chose white garments and so David partly for lightness and the joy now dancing befor the Ark. So that this instance doth not yet prove the question Besides I do not see how the carrying the Ark or Davids dancing were parts of Worship His third instance the Altar of Witness made by the two Tribes But I know not how this reaches the case for that was not intended with any respect to Divine worship the ten Tribes feared it and sent their messengers about it but the two Tribes protested against it they had no such intent Josh 22.29 God forbid c. There was no worship and our question is about Religious humane Ceremonies appropriated to Worship His fourth Instance the Temple it self designed by David and approved by God 1 King 8.17 18. Ans 1. If this be followed then you will tell us that something essential to the Worship of God may be invented by man as I touched before will you Sir affirm it I am sure the Temple was essential to their Worship 2. Place is but a circumstance of worship if the place were more splendid and sumptuous it was but a place still But I pray did David intend to build a place to have that mystical signification that the Temple had prove this I pray else you reach not the question there is nothing of this appearing in the Chapter David was moved from the zeal he bare to the honour of God the want of this the Lord reproves Hag. 1.4 9. 3. David did ground his design upon Deut. 12.10 VVhen he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about c. then there shall be a place which your God shall chuse To which Text 2 Sam. 7.1 answers When the King sate in his house and the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies c. then David is thinking to prepare a place so that David had ground for his enterprize only he was mistaken as to his enemies for he had much War after this and that Solomon renders as one cause why he could not build the House 1 King 5.3 And in the 4th v. But now the Lord my God hath given me rest on every side so that there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent So that David and Solomon had respect to that Law 4ly I know no error in it if I should say God also inspired David God had a great councel a decree of his to reveal to David of building him a House and of Christ to come of him after the flesh Rom. 1.3 Act. 13.23 he puts David upon it having also declared his purpose before in the Law Deut. 12.10 11. and takes occasion from this love of his to God to open his love and decree towards David that God did inspire him Bradwardin doth intimate de caus Dei l. 1. c. 25. those words in the fifth vers Shalt thou build me c. Diodati thinks to be words of admiration rather than reprehension And the 7th v. Spake I word c. God had often said in his Law that he would chuse himself a place but had not expressed where or when it should be and therefore lovingly admonisheth David to wait for this expression Thus Diodati But this still intimateth that David took the word for his ground Hence Psal 32.5 Vntil I find a place for the Lord. David useth the same word which Moses doth in Deut. 12.11 His next Instance is in the Synagogue-worship in which they were left in some particulars to their own prudential determinations which the Christian Church is not Instance is given in their Synagogal Officers admitted by imposition of hands when neither their office and authority nor

in imitation of Johns Baptism but still Sir we want one thing and this God approved of how prove you that quo jure by what Divine warrant was it done If you intended to show us your reading that is one thing but if you intended to convince us you know this is not the way for you do but prove the Jews had as carnal hearts as we unless you can show us that what they did in Divine Worship was agreeable to that Rule which is the Law to them and to us by which we must all be judged Next Mr. Falkner comes to Natural Worship and shows their customs about an Oath which I shall take into consideration when I answer the Fr. Debate where I find an argument against us from hence His next the Rites as he calls them of Memorial Stones set up by Samuel Jacob Joshua Ans But how do these reach the question If they at London will erect a Monument that Posterity may know where that sore Judgment of God as Samuels was Mercy in the deflagration of the City began If Laban and Jacob will make a heap of stones in the place where they sware though it may be neither Laban or Jacob ever came to the place again to see these stones what are these to our question so that of Joshua what signification of an Oath is there in a stone lying on the ground they may remember that in this place Joshua made us swear The stone serves for a Witness that there was such a part of Worship there celebrated If Joshua had called men of other Nations to hear the Covenant and witness what they sware what would you make of those witnesses to force the question in hand The Stone was a witness on both sides Josh 24.27 for it hath heard all the words of the Lord which he spake unto us as well as of their engagement to God The Stone did not signifie the Oath His next Instance is in the use of sackcloth and ashes c. Ans But were these invented among the Jews and used by them only in a Religious way or were they common to others Heathens as well as Jews to show by a civil custom their submissions fear sorrow they were under lying low before their superiors or noting an afflicted state The servants of Benhadad come to Ahab with sackcloth on their loins 1 King 20.31 32. these were no Jews The King of Nineveh Jon. 3.8 cause men and beasts more than we read of among the Jews that I remember to be clothed with Sackcloth God threatens Moab with Sackcloth Jer. 48.37 The Prophet Joel in the name of God Joel 1.13 calls to the Priests to lye in Sackcloth Do but you show us as much for the questions in hand and we shall be satisfied When Tamar 2 Sam. 13.19 put ashes on her head was it upon a Religious account Who taught the Heathen King of Nineveh to sit in sackcloth and ashes Jon. 3.6 did the Church of the Jews and he obeyed them Still these conclude not the question As for the indifferency of the things which Mr. Falkner next mentions I shall leave that till I have considered his other Scripture-arguments for that I only regard He passeth on to the New Testament where I see Mr. Carre Dr. Stilling fleet Mr. Falkner and all of them agree in urging the Holy kiss the Love-feasts and Dr. Stillingfleet adds the Deaconess which are alterable Rites though Apostolical and layed by even by the Nonconformists But this still will not prove the question unless you will do it thus If we may detract from the word then we may add to the word both are forbidden but you detract from the word As indeed this is Omission the other is positive But I pray Sir do not you argue from our sin if we be guilty to justifie yours For if they be indeed of Apostolical Institution we will take them all up again For the Love-feasts that they were of Apostolical Institution especially as joined to the Lords-Supper I find nothing to perswade me to it Feasting was a civil custom for the maintaining of love long before any of the Apostles were born The Apostle finds them in use but 1 Cor. 11.22 34. he finds fault with them and takes them away from the Lords Supper Calvin and Beza both affirm the same If some Churches did retain them yet not all Just Mart. Apol. 2. giving us an account how they performed the worship of God on the Lords-day makes no mention of this though he doth of the Lords-Supper And for Feasting after Tertullian's fashion if we administer at noon time the poor Nonconformists use to have the poor of the Church to dine with them So that this reaches not me So for Kissing men kissing men and women kissing women which you say was meant by their kissing not men kissing women This also was a civil custom a thousand of years before any Apostle was born how then this should be called an Apostolical Constitution I cannot understand Our civil custom is to give the right-hand or the hand and signifies the same that kissing doth the Apostle modifies a civil custom of their own and we stand obliged to the same duty the Apostle intends in it even Love without Dissimulation For the Deaconess if it were indeed an office required in all Churches I think we have done ill to omit it If the Council of Laodicea Can. 11. did remove the Deaconesses as some think we regard no such Councils The Churches of Bohemia did keep up that Office as Comenius relates That it was an office properly so called I question The Deaconess was not ordained as were all Church-officers and that with Imposition of hands they who omit Imposition of hands let them answer it Danaeus saith Non tam fuit munus hoc publicum quam subsidium aliquod a Diaconis quaesitum she was a help to the Deacon in such thing as were not comely for a Deacon to meddle in if the Sisters of the Church were sick As to this point in Churches rightly constituted the Deacon takes so much care of the sick though poor that as to the Nurse Food and Physick there is no want this I know by good experience 2ly Danaeus thinks they were helpful at their Love-feasts to wash dress c. this end is easily answered they being removed The third was in the entertainment of strangers washing of feet as in those Countries was their custom but in our Countries where there is no such custom wearing shoos as we do and not so hot a Climate and here all are Christians nomine tenus that end and use is laid by The first use then only remains which is answered as I said before Dr. Stilling fleet he tells us dipping in Baptism is out of practise Ans It is but very lately then a Gentleman told me he well remembred the dipping of Infants the Common-Prayer-Book doth not lay it by but that leaves you to use it or sprinkling I