Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	worship_n	worship_v	yield_v	59	3	7.4690	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59693	Theses Sabbaticæ, or, The doctrine of the Sabbath wherein the Sabbaths I. Morality, II. Change, III. Beginning. IV. Sanctification, are clearly discussed, which were first handled more largely in sundry sermons in Cambridge in New-England in opening of the Fourth COmmandment : in unfolding whereof many scriptures are cleared, divers cases of conscience resolved, and the morall law as a rule of life to a believer, occasionally and distinctly handled / by Thomas Shepard ...	Shepard, Thomas, 1605-1649.	1650 (1650)	Wing S3145; ESTC R31814	262,948	313

Commandment which therefore sets down the proper punishment for this sin So by love of God is not meant love of God at large which is seen in keeping every Command but in particular when we love God in his owne Ordinances and institutions Look therefore as hatred of God in setting up mans inventions and institutions which superstitious persons thinke to be much love to God is here condemned in the negative part of the Commandment so on the contrary love to God in closing with him and seeking of him in his owne Institutions whether Word or Sacraments c. is here enjoyned in the affirmative part of this Command and consequently not as Wallaeus would have it in the affirmative part of the fourth Command Keeping my Commandments being set downe as a fruit of this love and both together being opposed to hatred of God Hence by Commandments cannot be meant in generall all the ten Commandments as some imagine upon miserable weake grounds which I lift not to mention but in speciall Gods Institutions and Ordinances commanded in speciall by him to which humane inventions and Images of mens heads and hands are commonly in Scripture opposed and are therefore condemned because not commanded or because none of his Commandments Ier. 7.31 Deut. 12.30 31. Matth. 15.9 If therefore againe Gods Institutions and Commandments are here enjoyned in this second Commandment they cannot bee directly required in the fourth Command These things being thus cleared the objections of Wallaeus are easily answered For first he saith That from the negative part of this second Commandment cannot be gathered such an affirmative part as this is viz. That God will be worshipped by the Word and Sacraments But that this assertion thus barely propounded but not proved is false appeares from what hath been said concerning the true meaning of the negative part of this Command For if humane inventions under the name of graven Image bee forbidden then Divine Institutions such as Word and Sacraments bee are here commanded and from that negative any ordinary capacity may readily see what the affirmative is Hee saith again secondly That if instituted worship was contained under the affirmative part of the second Commandment then this Commandment is mutable because God was thus worshipped one way before Christ and another way since Christ but saith he the second Commandment is morall and therefore immutable and therefore such mutable worship cannot be enjoyned herein But we have formerly shewne that although this Commandment be morall and immutable in respect of it selfe yet in respect of the application of it to this or that object or thing commanded it may be in that respect mutable For it is an immutable law that God must be worshipped with his owne worship such as hee shall institute and this is the summe of the second Commandment it selfe yet the things instituted wherein there is onely an application of the command may be mutable the second Commandment doth not immutably binde to the observance of this or that particular instituted worship onely But to observe Gods instituted worship and to attend his appointments which is the onely morall law and rule in the affirmative part of this Command Hee thirdly objects That the worshipping of God in Word and Sacraments c. is never opposed in all the Scripture to the worshipping of Images But this is false for Gods Institutions of which Word and Sacraments are a part are frequently opposed to humane inventions the worship appointed by God to the worship devised by man Images of Gods devising are oft opposed to Images of mens owne inventing the voice of God which was onely heard with the eare is opposed to an Image or similitude which might bee seen Deut. 4.12 A graven Image a teacher of lies is opposed to the Lords teaching of truth and also to his presence in his Temple which was the seat of instituted worship Habak 2.18 19 20. The worship of Images which God would have abolished is opposed to the worship of God by Sacrifices and Ceremonies in the place which God should chuse Deuter. 12.1 to 20. but yet he tels us That to worship God in Images and to worship him in Spirit and Truth which is inward worship are opposite as also the lifting up of pure hands in every place John 4.28 1 Tim. 2.8 Hee tels us also that acknowledging of God in his Immensity and Infinite Majesty are opposed to image-Image-worship Rom. 1.20 21 22. Isa. 40.22 Bee it so But will it therefore follow that to worship God according to his own Institutions is not to worship him in Spirit and in Truth Is it rather a carnall than a spirituall worship to attend on God in Word and Sacraments May we not lift up pure hands in the use of Gods own institutions Is not Gods Immensity and Majesty acknowledged and seen in the use of his owne Ordinances as well as creatures and providences I confesse the blinder sort of Heathens might worship stocks and stones and Images of creeping things and four-footed Beasts in the place of God himselfe terminatively and God might account of all their Image-worship as such though used relatively and hence the opposition may well bee made between worshipping them as God and an infinite God and this worship as was said fals then under the first Commandment but assuredly this Image-worship which the Apostle condemnes Rom. 1.21 23. in debasing the infinite Majesty and limiting it to this and that Image wherein they did worship it is forbidden being only relative worship in the second Command For I think the Apostle in Rom. 1. hath an eye principally at the most lascivious Idolaters in the world viz. the Egyptians among whom principally we read of those Images of creeping things and foure-footed beasts in their Hier●gliphicks and yet we know that all that base worship did set out something or other of the Deity which therein and so relatively they did worship But I must not enter into the Discourse of these things here sufficient is said to cleare up this point viz. That Gods instituted worship fals directly under the second not fourth Command Thesis 62. It is true that the exercise of publick worship of many together is to be at this time upon the Sabbath but doth it follow that therefore this publick worship it self falls directly under this command For if publick Assemblies bee as some think a part of naturall worship so as that the light of nature directs all men dwelling together as creatures to worship God together publickly as Creator then this worship fals directly under the first not fourth Commandment where natural worship is directly commanded but if publick Assemblies be considered as distinct Churches politically united and combined publickly to worship God then such Churches considered thus as politicall not mysticall Assemblies do fall directly under the second Command as parts of instituted worship for as all devised formes of Churches whether Diocesan Provinciall Nationall Universall being the

darkenesse is not so called Night but the separated darkenesse Gen. 1.3 when God separated the light into one Hemisphere and darknesse into another Thesis 84. But this arguing is almost against the expresse Letter of the Text Gen. 1. wherein it is most evident that light was created after darknesse had bin some time upon the face of the deepe which darknesse cannot be part of the Day-light no more then blindnesse is a part of sight and therefore is a part of the Night before this conceived separated darkenesse could exist Beside the separation of darknesse from light doth not make any new darkenesse which is a new denominated darkenesse but is the same darkenesse which was at first onely the separation is a new placeing of it but it gives no new being to it Thesis 85. Suppose also that light and darknesse are contraria privantia yet 't is not true either in Philosophy or Divinity that the habit must alway actually goe before the privation in the same subject for the privation may be first if it be in subjecto capaci i. e. In a subject capable of the habit for silence may be before speech in a man and blindnesse and deafenesse in a man who never saw nor heard a word because man is a subject capable of both and so here darknesse might be before light because this subject of the first matter was capable of both Thesis 86. Nor is it true in Divinity that the darkenesse and light were at first separated into two Hemispheres or if they were yet what orthodox Writer affirmes that the supposed separated darkenesse onely is called Night Thesis 87. For looke as the darkenesse did overspread the whole Chaos and all the dimensions of it at the same time why might not the light the habit be extended as far as was the privation before and that at the same time there being no globe or dense body of earth and waters existing as now they doe at that time created and consequently no opake and solid body to divide betweene light and darkenesse and so to seprate them into two Hemispheres as by this meanes it is at this day unlesse we imagine miracles without necessity and that God then miraculously did it when there was no necessity of it For the Element of fire being figuratively called light it being as Iunius shewes proprietas essentialls ignis being also created in the superiour part of the vast Chaos might therefore be cast downe by a mighty hand of God there being no ordinary meanes of Sun or Stars yet created to do it into all the inferiour Chaos and so make day And the ascending of this light upwards againe might make it to be Night and therefore although God separated between light and darkenesse yet this separation se●mes to be rather in respect of time then in respect of place or two Hemispheres for the light when it was east downe separated and scattered the darkenesse and so excluded it so that when there was light there was no darknesse when darkenesse there was no light and thus they succeeding and excluding one another the Lord is said to separate them one from another but not into two imagined Hemispheres by which imagination of two Hemispheres it will be also very difficult to set downe when it was day and when it was night at this time of the Creation because in respect of one part of the Chaos it might be called day in respect of the other Hemisphere of the Chaos it might be called night and therefore it seems more suitable to the truth that the descending of the Light made day thorowout the whole Chaos remaining and the ascending of it to its proper place successively made night which as it answers many curious questions about the nature and motion of this light so it yeelde a more then probable argument that if the day-light continued twelve houres which none question why should not each night continue as long and therefore that the first darknesse did continue such a time before the creation of the Light Thesis 88. But suppose this locall separation into two Hemispheres was granted yet it will not follow from hence that this separated darknesse onely is called night and that the darkenesse before was no part of it for if the day and night began at the imagined division of light and darknesse then this division being in an instant of time neither could the day be before the night nor the night before the day but both exist and begin together and then it will follow that the beginning of the first day was neither in the morning nor evening in darknesse nor light in night nor day but that it began in the morning and evening day-light and dark night together which is too grosse for any wise man to affirm nor would the God of Order do it Againe if the first darkenesse which was pr●eexistent to this Hemisphericall light and darknesse was no part of the night then much lesse was it any part of the first day-light and so no part of the naturall day which if any should affirm they must deny the creation of the world in six dayes for its evident that the Heavens and Earth were made in the time of the first darknesse Thesis 89. To say that this first darknesse was part of the morning and did belong to the morning-light as now some time of darknesse in the the morning is called morning and therefore is called the womb of the morning Psal. 110.2 is a meer shift to prove the beginning of time to be in the morning and an evasion from the evidence of truth For 1. This first darknesse must either be the whole night consisting as the light did of about twelve houres and then it cannot possibly be called morning or belong thereunto or it must be part of the night and that which came after the light another part of it and then we may see a monstrous day which hath part of its night before it and part after it beside its contrary to the Text which makes the whole morning together and the whole evening together the whole day-light together and so the whole night together 2. That darknesse which by an improper speech we make to belong to the morning in our ordinary account is the latter part of the night or of the darknesse but we read not in all the Scripture nor is it suitable to any solid reason to make the first beginning of Night or darknesse as part of the morning Now this first darknesse which is the beginning of darknesse is called night at least is the beginning of night and therefore cannot be called morning but evening rather as we usually call the first beginning of darknesse after day light Thesis 90. That expresse Commandment Lev. 23 32. to celebrate the Ceremoniall Sabbath from Even to Even doth strongly prove the beginning of the morall Sabbath at the same time for why else is it called a Sabbath of rest but because