Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	wit_n	write_v	writer_n	43	3	7.7823	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47339	A sermon preached before the lords spiritual and temporal in the Abey-Church at Westminster, the 30th of January, 1691/2 by ... Richard Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.	Kidder, Richard, 1633-1703.	1692 (1692)	Wing K414; ESTC R2194	11,426	34

the Offence might abound Rom. 5.20 Secondly It will be a matter of greater difficulty to determine who was this Zacharias the Son of Barachias who was slain between the Temple and the Altar There are several Opinions about it 1. That it is to be understood of the Prophet Zechariah Zech. 1.1 who is said to be the Son of Barachiah But this is not likely For we do not find that he was slain and if we had cause to believe that he was slain yet have we no cause to think he was slain between the Temple and the Altar The Jews in his time were newly returned from Captivity and then their Temple and Altar were not built If it had 't is not very likely they should there have slain this Prophet Be that as it will we have not Evidence of the fact 2. That it is to be understood of Zacharias the Father of John Baptist This would well agree with the Context had we sufficient reason to believe the matter of fact We have not ground enough to believe that he was slain by the Jews nor does it appear that he was the Son of Barachias 3. There is another Zacharias that bids fairer than those named before to be the Person meant by our Saviour He is mentioned 2 Chron. 24.20 He was indeed a Prophet and a Righteous Man He was slain by the Hands of the People and Command of the King and that also in the Court of the house of the Lord And that agrees well with what is in my Text expressed by between the Temple and the Altar When he was killed he said The Lord look upon it and require His was indeed Righteous bloud and the guilt was National and might well be required of that generation His Death was a most hainous Sin He was himself a Prophet and a Priest and the Son of an High-Priest who was the great Restorer of God's Worship and had deserved greatly both of the King and People 'T was great Impiety to kill so great a Saint and the Son of one who had deserved a perpetual Memory from King and People 'T was a detestable crime to murther him considering his innocence his birth and character and greater still to doe it when he was in the execution of his Office and bringing them back to the worship of God and to doe all this not onely in the sight of the Sun but in the House of his God But after all that hath been said there are two considerable objections against this otherwise very probable opinion also First That the person mentioned 2 Chron. 24. is said to be the Son of Jehojada this in my Text the Son of Barachias R. Isaac Chizuk Emun l. 2. c. 22. This is by a Jewish Writer urged as an Error in the Text of St. Matthew and such an one also as will admit of no salvo But the Jews of all Men have no reason to make this objection against the authority of the Text. Such pretences may be brought against some Books of the Old Testament which yet can be of no force to destroy their authority They might rather suppose this person to have two Names that of Jehojada and this of Barachias It was very common among them Psal 34. Tit. with 1 Sam. 21.11 No man doubts of the Psalmist's authority because he calls the same man Abimilech whom another sacred Writer calls Achish The same man is called Ner in one place who in another is called Abiel 1 Sam. 9.1 with 1 Chron. 8.32 One sacred Writer calls him Ammiel whom another calls Eliam 2 Sam. 11.3 with 1 Chron. 3.5 And him Chileab whom another calls Daniel 2 Sam. 3.3 with 1 Chron. 3.1 The same woman is said to be the daughter of Elon and in the same book called the daughter of Ismael Menass B. Israel Concil in Exod. qu. 1. Joseph Antiq. l. 2. c. 12. Gen. 26.34 with Chap. 36. v. 3. Reuel Jethro and Hobab are by the Jews allowed to be the several Names of the same person Nothing being more common than for the same man to have divers Names and for that cause no man in his wits can impeach the sacred Writers for using this variety I shall add that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written originally in Hebrew And St. Hierom tells us expresly Hieron in Matt. 23. that in that Hebrew Copy which the Nazarens used it was Jojada where we now reade Barachias We have no reason to doubt of one or of the other And then the objection lies not against the Original Text And it can have no force against the Greek Version For Jehojada and and Berachiah being names of the very same import and signification in the Hebrew as Eliakim and Jehojakim are 2 Chro. 36.4 which belonged to the same person and for what we know the same person might be called by both 'T is not strange that Jehojada should by the Greek Interpreter be rendred Barachias Secondly It may likewise be objected that 't is not likely that the Zacharias in my Text should refer to the Son of Jehojada because our Saviour beginning as high as Abel 't is not to be supposed he should descend no lower than that Son of Jehojada who was slain Eight hundred years before these words were spoken 'T is more reasonable to believe that he would descend to the latter end of the Jewish Polity and that he refers to some person that was slain a little before the dissolution of the Jewish State And upon this Consideration I add 4. That there is another Zacharias mentioned by Josephus De Bell. Judaic l. 4. c. 18. that was slain by the Jews a-while before the destruction and dissolution of the Jewish Polity Him he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was accused as guilty of Treachery and too great a Favourer of the Romans But tho' he were innocent and absolved by the Sanedrin yet was he unjustly slain by the Jewish Zealots 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. in the middle of the Temple which agrees very well with between the Temple and the Altar This instance answers very well to Abel slain from the beginning It agrees well with my Text he was the Son of Baruch and slain in the Temple And then our Saviour's words are proleptical and being a Prophecy of what was shortly to come to pass no wonder that they are expressed in such terms a thing very usual in the old Prophets as if the thing had already been fulfilled The time past is frequently used for the future among the ancient Prophets and sometimes in the New Testament also Rev. 11.13 And if the words of Jesus refer to this person then are they so far from affording an Objection against the truth of the Gospel-history that they do confirm it What hath been said is sufficient I hope for the Explanation of my words I proceed now to II. Shew the Justice of this denunciation That upon you may come c. And here I