Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	day_n	lord_n	put_v	4,056	5	4.9852	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A16624	Twelve generall arguments proving that the ceremonies imposed upon the ministers of the gospell in England, by our prelates, are unlawfull; and therefore that the ministers of the gospell, for the bare and sole omission of them in church service, for conscience sake, are most unjustlie charged of disloyaltie to his Maiestie.	Bradshaw, William, 1571-1618.	1605 (1605)	STC 3531; ESTC S113554	22,354	86

Ceremonies is to sinne The Proposition is his M. own if Master B. have made a true report of the Cōference at Hampt Court for therein his Ma. confesseth That if wee lived amongst Idolators we ought not then to communicate with them in their Rites and Ceremonies The Assumption is thus prooved If Papistes be Idolators if we be not onely in league with whole kingdomes of Papistes bordering upon us and neare unto us but have many Thousande professed ones living amongst us if these Ceremonies be speciall mysteries of their Superstition if to use the same Rites that they do in theirs in our spirituall and Divine Service he spiritually to communicate with them in the same Then is the Sentence of the Assumption true But wee shall be able to prove as sone as any shall deny that the first and every parte and parcell thereof is true Ergo The later is true also The 7. Argument To mingle Profane things with Divine is to sinne To use these Ceremonies in Divine Worship is to mingle Profane things with Divine Ergo To use these Ceremonies in Divine Worship is to sinne The Proposition shineth in the eyes of the very Heathen who have esteemed it a dishonor to their Religion worshippe that any profane persons should be Actors in it much more that any profane Actions should bee mingled with it The Assumption is thus proved All peculiar Actions done in Divine Worship that are neither Civill nor holy are profane These Ceremonies are peculiar actions done in Divine Worship that are neither civill nor holy Ergo They are Profane The Proposition cannot with any shew of reason be denied there being no meane betweene these in such actions as are prescribed to be done in Divine Service by Canon and Law For though spitting coughing hemming c. if they be used for necessitie bee neither civill holy nor profane Actions Yet if there should be an Ecclesiasticall Canon that should require the Minister to spit at every full period or the people to hem and hauke at every trāsition in a Sermon they must needs then be referred to one of these three heades as shall easily be proved if it be denyed The Assumption is as cleare For first his Ma. with words of great disgrace and contempt of those that hold the contrarie hath lately protested that they are not urged as holy Religious matters And that they are not Civill Actions hath beene proved before for there beeing an opposition in Reason betweene things Civill Ecclesiasticall though they haue some things common to both as all opposites haue yet it is ridiculous to affirme that those things are Civill that are meerely Ecclesiasticall and are Actions peculiarly appropriated and tied to Divine Worship For Civill Actions are performed in Civill affaires and though there is a common Civilitie also to be observed even in Divine matters Yet those Actions cannot be called Civill that are used onely in Divine Offices and duties no more then those can be called Ecclesiasticall and Divine that are used onely in Civill affaires For it may be affirmed by as good reason that an Ecclesiasticall Officer imployed onely in Ecclesiasticall matters is a Civill Officer only Or a Civill Officer imployed onely in Civill matters is an Ecclesiasticall Officer only as that a meere Ecclesiasticall action done in and by the Church onely should be a Civill Action The 8. Argument If it be lawfull to use these Ceremonies in Divine worship it is therefore lawfull because they are either lawfull in themselves or being things in their owne Nature indifferent are made lawfull by the commaundment of the Magistrate to bee used in Divine Service But they are neither lawfull in themselves to be used nor therefore lawfull because the Magistrate commaundes them so to be used though they bee Matters in their owne Nature indifferent Ergo They are unlawfull to be used in Divine Worship The Proposition I think can not be denied when it is I hope it may bee prooved The first part of the Assumption is cleare For if they were in themselves lawfull to be used then might a Minister of the Gospel being left to his own discretion by the Magistrate invent institute and use the like Ceremonies in the same maner without sinne For any man left to him selfe may lawfully doe that which of it selfe is lawfull and indifferent But a Minister should sinne against God if hee should of his owne head institute use the like Ceremonies to these though permitted by the Magistrate Except wee should hold that it is lawfull for a Minister to doe any indifferent thing in Gods Service for a man may of any indifferent thing make a Ceremonie like unto one of these The second part of the Assumption is thus proved If they bee therefore lawfull because beeing things in their owne Nature indifferent the Magistrate commaunds them to be done in Divine Service Then whatsoever thing being in it owne Nature indifferent is or shal be commaunded by the Magistrate is lawfull to bee done in Divine Service But all things that are in them selves matters indifferent are not lawfull to bee done in Divine Service though the Magistrate should commaund them Ergo They are not therefore lawfull to be used in Divine service because the Magistrate commandes them though they be things in their owne nature indifferent The Proposition cannot be denied For if some things indifferent in their owne Nature being commaunded by the Magistrate are unlawfull It can be no good Argumēt to say These things being indifferent are commaunded by the Magistrate Ergo They may lawfully be done Much-lesse therefore they ought to be done Or as the Doctors of Oxef affirme that they binde the conscience The Assumption is more cleare then the Proposition If it be considered either what things are indifferent indeed or goe under the name and title of indifferent things Eating drincking the avoiding the superfluities of Nature due benevolence betweene man and wife spinning and carding killing of Oxen and sheep c. which of themselves have in them neither vertue nor vice are therfore indifferent Actions and yet I thinke none except professed Atheistes but will hold it a foule sinne to doe some of these Actions in any Assembly much more in the solemne worship of God though the Magistrate should commaund the same even upon paine of death But if it be further considered That Carding and Dicing Masking and Dauncinge for Men to put on Woomens apparell and women mens Drincking to healthes Ribald Stage-playes c. are things indifferent to be done even vpō the Lords owne day May a Minister of the Gospell uppon the Magistrates commaundement doe any of these in Divine Worship And yet ther is none of these but may have applied unto them by the Witt of Man a Mysticall and Religious Sence and then by this Bish of Canterburies Rule They must needes be good and lawfull Ceremonies for his principall Argument to proove them lawfull at his last Cōvention of