Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	write_a	write_v	year_n	37	3	4.0725	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78427	Sabbatum redivivum: or The Christian sabbath vindicated; in a full discourse concerning the sabbath, and the Lords day. Wherein, whatsoever hath been written of late for, or against the Christian sabbath, is exactly, but modestly examined: and the perpetuity of a sabbath deduced, from grounds of nature, and religious reason. / By Daniel Cawdrey, and Herbert Palmer: members of the Assembly of Divines. Divided into foure parts. 1. Of the decalogue in generall, and other laws of God, together with the relation of time to religion. 2. Of the fourth commandement of the decalogue in speciall. 3. Of the old sabbath, 4. Of the Lords day, in particular. The first part.; Sabbatum redivivum. Part 1	Cawdrey, Daniel, 1588-1664.; Palmer, Herbert, 1601-1647.	1645 (1645)	Wing C1634; Thomason E280_3; ESTC R200035	350,191	408

to undertake to prove Le● lata non irrita facta ian obligat Epis Win opusc pag. 148. that Tythes are due by divine right this Law saith he did sometimes oblige the Church as cannot be denyed but it is not now Abrogated therefore it binds still in which argumentation he must needs take our Rule for a ground A Law instituted in the old Testament not Abrogated in the New is of perpetuall obligation though it have no expresse ratification in the Gospel leaving therefore our adversaries at home to answer him we add yet a further proof of our Rule Thirdly otherwise the Church of God VII 3. Else no Canon till the New T. written immediately after the Death of Christ for many yeers together that is untill the New Testament was written had had no written Canon at all for their practice either toward God or toward men but were left meerly to the Law of Nature For the old Testament was it seemes quite disanulled at the Death of Christ at least in regard of all Positive Lawes that against Polygamie and all and as for the Morall they bound not the Christians as written in the old Testament or as some say as given by Moses but only as Lawes of Nature All which we conceive a great inconvenience in regard that Nature corrupted which is now to be the Judge as we said before is but a dimm Light in those in whom it is most clear And whereas it may be pretended that the Preaching of Christ and his Apostles might sufficiently supply the want of the written Law wee answer that though it might to the Gentiles who were strangers to the Scriptures of the old Testament yet not to the Iewes and those that conversed with them who could never have beene wrought upon to have embraced the Doctrine of the Gospel if it had not been grounded upon the Doctrine of the Law of the old Testament that is if they that Preached it had not called for Repentance for transgressions of the Law and urged still to the obedience of it as indeed both Christ and his Apostles do upon all occasions and without it also their Preaching would easily have been both forgotten and mistaken if there had been no grounds of Gods Law written by and upon which to settle the consciences of their hearers Fourthly VIII 4. Confirmed by Christ and his Apostles to all which we may in the last place adjoyne this consideration that if those places in the New Testament be observed some of them at least if not all where it is pretended that Christ or any of his Apostles do ratifie any of the Lawes of the Old Testament it will be found that they containe no such ratification as our adversaries pretend in this question For they will appear not to be spoken by way of such confirmation without which those Lawes ought to have been no longer accounted in force which in propriety of speech is a new imposition of them As when a King by his Proclamation confirms his former Proclamation which was voyd by the death of his Predecessor this is properly a new imposition of the same things by his Authority which after the former Kings death were not of any validity at all We say that the confirmation that the New Testament gives unto the Lawes of the Old Testament will not be found to be of this Nature but rather testifications of those Lawes standing in force and so alledging them to confirm their own Doctrine or to be a ground of it As our Saviour evidently Alledges a Text out of Gen. 2. to ground and confirm his Doctrine against divorce Mat. 19. and the Apostles in like manner as we shall give some other instances hereafter rather fetching their Authority in part at least from the books of the Old Testament in matters of practise as well as of Faith then lending strength to them by their owne Authority IX So that the very silence of the N. T. rather confirmes any Law then Abrogates it And so we suppose we may upon just reason inferre that the silence of the New Testament concerning a Law expressely and cleare-livered in the Old Testament is a confirmation rather then an abrogation of it or an intimation that it is expired judicious Divines giving this for a reason of the silence of the New Testament in diverse points which are most vehemently urged in the old as against incestuous marriages fore noted and that others are but slightly and as it were occasionally mentioned as the Lawes about Tythes and usury c. because they are so clearly and importunately pressed in the old And therefore till we see better reasons to the contrary then any we have yet met with in all our disputers books we must needs hold that all the Lawes of the Old Testament are perpetuated to this day if there be nothing against them in the New Testament by way of repealing them or at least in reason which might plead for an expiration And if any one think that by this assertion sundry of the Lawes which are usually counted judaicall will prove to be in force still we answer that perhaps it may prove so indeed And if we may have Liberty to expresse our apprehension of the Case in generall we must needs confesse that as we beleeve it lies upon our Consciences in particular to prove any particular Law this or that which we hold to be Ceremoniall or Judaicall to be such or else we cannot justly nor safely plead it to be Repealed or Expired if it be not named among such expresly in the New Testament So we are afraid that many Divines not to say some Churches and States now adayes have been a little too bold in rejecting sundry Lawes as meerly Judaicall which upon further advisement might perhaps be found Morall and Perpetuall To which our next Rule will speak some what more fully But before we proceed to that X. The Text Act. 15.28 29. expounded we will as we intimated before a promise in our Margent speak a little of that place Act. 15. for 3 causes specially One is that The things there mentioned to be Necessary to be observed when all the rest of the Jewish Ceremonies were discharged are not all of one kinde but one of them is Morall the other three Ceremoniall 2. Because not only some persons are yet tender in the point of eating Blood but also the Greek Church generally hold that Prohibition in force Therefore we will say somewhat at least toward the clearing of both these as also why the Ceremonies mentioned were continued then if they be not now in force 3. For that some light also may perhaps from hence be afforded to judge of some other Lawes But all briefly that we may not be held too long in any Digression from the main Intendment We find in that place Act. 15. XI 1. Why Fornication forbidden there being Morall four Laws by name recommended to the Christian

so one Day in seven Now the perpetuating of this number of one Day in seven we say is by Gods determination of the fourth Commandement still in force They say only by the Churches Authority freely taking it up again after it was made void But against this we argue That the Church having in their opinion authority to chuse another number more Frequent one of 6. or 5. or more rare though sometimes they deny this as one of 8. or 10. It cannot by any just reason be justified or excused in determining again one Day of seven nor can any rule of wisedome plead for the observing of that number if cast by by God But rather all things are against it proclaiming that that number of all other was the most unfit to be taken up again by the Christian Church when as God had rejected it upon so great an occasion as the Death of Christ His Son and our Saviour And for this we have divers particular reasons 1. What is this but expresly to crosse the Wisdom of god LV. 1. It is crosse to the wisdom of God who by His abrogation of this number from being any more obligatory hath manifested His dislike of the number whether as too often or too seldom or as typicall or for what ever other reason can be imagined or surmised The Church having power and authority to chuse another number there being still to be a revolution of Dayes for Religion What could be more absurd then to chuse again this rejected disliked number 2. LVI 2. Th● particular seventh Day may as well be reassumed What can be alledged for the reassuming of the number of one Day in seven and rejecting the particular seventh Day if they were both alike Ceremoniall and Typicall so abrogated by Christs Death Or may not the particular Day be reassumed again or any of other Iewish Ceremonies Circumcision Sacrifices difference of meat as well as this number of one in seven If this number be included within the reach of Gal. 4. Rom. 14. Col. 2. which lay levell the Judaicall dayes How can it be retained without contradicting those Texts Or may not all the rest of the weak and beggerly elements and rudiments of the world be reassumed and maintained as well as this If this be one of them Is this the liberty Christs death hath purchased to give His Church leave to continue those Ordinances any one of them for so many hundred yeeres which He hath disanulled and to continue them to the same purpose for which they were of old as this to be the number for the chiefe Time necessary and sufficient for all Christians when they had choice enough besides To bind Christians to that number again by vertue of their Authority left them to settle the waight of the Law of Nature and continuing Morality of the fourth Commandement for a necessary and sufficient Time when God and Christ had set them loose and free from it For our parts we can thinke no otherwise but that this number is unlawfull to be observed for the chiefe Time if God have disanulled it and that the Christian Church had sinned in all Ages in determining or observing it Which because we cannot believe we doubt not but they believed themselves still bound to it by vertue of the fourth Commandement and not of any new determination of the Church at any time and so we believe our selves and all Christians still to be LVII 3. It hath been the cause of scandals to Christians 3. The retaining or reassuming of this number hath apparently done hurt by giving scandall to the Sabbatarians pleading for the particular Jewish day to be still to be observed as well as the number of one Day in seven Also by giving scandall to us whom our Adversaries also in courtesie nick-name Sabbatarians misleading us into superstition if we be mis-led as they say we are for urging the observation of this number and of the whole Day withall as a Sabbath by vertue of the fourth Commandement still in force and so as necessary to Religion by Gods command Which neither the Saturday-Sabbatarians nor we much lesse could ever have dreamed of or have pretended any thing for no more then for the Jewish new moones or other festivals if the number had been altered to one Day of sixe or of eight How easily had this great and multiplied scandall been prevented and how necessarily upon the foregoing Reasons specially Whereas grant the fourth Commandement perpetuall for one Day of seven upon just grounds and though the Saturday-Sabbatarians stumble then at the particular Day yet we doubt not but to remove that sufficiently and God hath done it in His Word as we shall shew though still some will stumble at most plaine truths But this the Church should prevent in her determinations and is most justly blamed for not doing upon the supposition that It might For further 4. If the Church had power to take one Day of sixe LVIII 4. It argues want of zeale in the Church not to determine so much or one Day of five and determine that number in a Revolution for the chiefe solemne Time Where hath been the ●eale of the Christian Church all this while ever since our Saviours time that they have never pitcht upon such a determination as might have been remarkably advantagious in a yeere and much more in a life for the good of Soules and so for the honour of God Which had also taken away and prevented quite all the forementioned inconveniencies Could never any Generall Councell or Nationall Church bethinke themselves of this But they must cling still to that most inconvenient and scandalous number 5. If it be said It was to comply somewhat with the Jewes LIX 5. It is also scandalous to the Jewes that this number of one Day in seven was still retained We answer 1. That somewhat was nothing since the particular Day was cast off which the Jews still hold to and blame as much the neglect of as they could or would for altering the number 2. Rather this is also a scandall to the Jewes that we Christians keep the number still and reject the particular Day which though it be not of importance unto those that know they have the will of God for keeping that and rejecting this 1 Cor. 10.32 yet it falls heavy upon those who unnecessarily scandalize even the Jewes by retaining this number of one Day in seven and rejecting that particular Day while yet they say they were both together in the fourth Commandement and are both now together abrogated as are all the words of the fourth Commandement and yet in the mean time It as well as any of the other ten is written upon Church-walls and read and taught to children and ignorants even the very words of it 3. If this number of one Day in seven had been a while retained for the Jewes sake yet it ought to have ceased long since The