Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	apostle_n	law_n	transgression_n	5,619	5	10.4785	5	true

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

Determinate solemne Time for Gods Worship is Morall Naturall This we must first Explaine and then we shall set upon the proofe of it For explication we desire it may be observed 1. 1. Meant onely of the Continuance and Frequency That We affirme it onely in regard of the quantity or Proportion of time but yet of that in both the respects of it the Quamdiu or Continuance and the Quoties or Frequency That some Determinate solemne Continuance is Morall Naturall and again some Determinate solemne Frequency is commanded by the very Law of nature namely according to our former description of the law of nature c. 1. That every reasonable man notwithstanding the present corruption of his nature may be forced to acknowledge it necessary to be given to God in duties of His immediate and solemne worship in regard of the importance of those respects of time for Religion Gods Honour and the good of mens soules And that accordingly duties must attend those Determinations of Time to fill up the whole Continuance and answer the revolutions But we say no such thing of the Quando season III. Not of the season or order of beginning by it self considered as not being of it self any way materiall to Religion as hath been discoursed before Only when the other respects are discerned to be determined there will also appeare some kind of necessity of some Determination of this also at least to secure mens helping one another and prevent their hindring one another who live in a neernesse together as we shall see more hereafter IIII. 2. Of those both single and joyntly 2. We affirme this Determination of the law of nature not onely of each of those respects single of some Continuance and some Frequency but of both of them jointly that some Determination of such a Continuance so often V. 3. Not remisse only nor conclusive nor exclusive but only Initiall and of such a Frequency with such Continuance is Morall Naturall and made by the very law of nature 3. That by the Determinations which we maintaine in this position to be made by the law of nature of these respects of time As on the one hand we understand more then a remisse Determination to say as many disputers do onely a convenient Time or a sufficient Time leaving both the termes and limits for length or shortnesse of Continuance and for Frequency or seldomenesse of Revolution wholly undesigned So on the other hand we meane not a conclusive Determination assigning exactly the limits on both sides much lesse an exclusive determination of which sort we have before noted that we find none absolutely given out by God any where in reference to the generall businesse of Religion But onely such Determination as we have before termed Initiall wherein the Initiall terme of either of those respects of Time of the Continuance and of the Frequency is determined that is the Continuance to be so long together at least and no lesse while as also the revolution so often at least and no seldomer So requiring somewhat both for Continuance and Frequency strictly and implying withall somewhat more in each respect but leaving that somewhat to some other Determination of God or man More plainly we meane that the Law of nature determines the Continuance in regard of the shortest proportion That so much together at least cannot but be necessary to be presented to God at one time or other of every manslife and so again That so often at least in a revolution to waite upon God solemnely in duties of Religion and Divine Worship cannot but be necessary to every man during his life upon earth VI. 2 Proved of the Continuance single And now we come to prove our Position 1. For the Quamdiu or Continuance single If there may be sin against the law of nature in giving God too little time at once in waiting upon him in the dutyes of solemne worship then some Determined solemne Time is Morall Naturall in regard of the proportion of continuance in his worship But there may be sin even against the law of nature in giving God too little Time at once Ergo. The consequence of this argument is undeniably confirmed by those sentences of the Apostle that whosoever sins transgresses the law for sin is the transgression of the law and where no law is there is no transgression So that if to give God never above halfe a minute at once in waiting upon him in any solemne worship be a transgression and sinne even against the law of nature then the law of nature Determines a solemne Time at least somewhat above that Propotion of Continuance and so a whole minute or three quarters of a minute or the like is a Determinate solemne Time by the law of nature and morall naturall or any other proportion of continuance that can be named or imagined smaller then this will serve to illustrate and confirme this consequence The Antecedent is no lesse certaine and cleare what ever conscience of the most corrupted man be called to judge if he wholly deny not a God and a worship due to him for all men cannot but confesse that it were sin never throughout a mans whole life to give God above halfe a minute at once or a quarter of a minute or any lesse proportion of continuance if lesse can be mentioned or observed As for instance that of the Publican Luke 18. when he smote his breast and cried Lord be mercifull to me a sinner this was a solemne Worship and continued a little longer then an instant and so was measurable for Continuance but never to give God a larger Continuance cannot but be acknowledged a sinne Ergo our conclusion is firme that some Determinate solemne Time above that proportion of Continuance is Morall-Naturall and determined even by the law of nature The like argument will serve mutatis mutandis for some Determinate solemne Time in regard of the Quotie VII Of the frequency single or Frequency single If there may be sin against the law of nature in wayting upon God too seldome then some Determinate solemne Time is Morall Naturall in regard of the Frequency of revolution But there may be sin against the law of nature in waiting upon God too seldome Ergo. The consequence is proved as before That where no law is there is no transgression no sin c. So that if it be transgression and sinne even against natures law never through a mans life to waite upon God in his worship above once then the law of nature Determines a solemne Frequency above the proportion of once and so twice at least in a mans life is a Determinate Time by the law of nature and so Morall Naturall The Antecedent is also undeniable by any one that hath not altogether forsworne all conscience and renounced all Religion in regard of God For whether by waiting upon God we understand presenting unto him Eiaculatory Worship which may perhaps be dispatched

speaking of restraining all Times necessary to Religion to Gods own appointment it doth by a sure inference from the general to the particular restraine the chiefe Time necessary to Religion for all men to Gods appointment and peculiar determination infallibly The Antecedent that such is the generall meaning or part of the generall meaning of a Commandement of the decalogue we thus make good Namely by a twofold instance of sinne charged upon the observation of Times appointed by men as necessary to Religion 1. The Scripture charges upon Ieroboam sin for determining to Israel and so observing a Feast like the Feast that was in Iudah That in Iudah was the Feast of Tabernacles appointed on the fifteenth day of the seventh Ieroboams was on the fifteenth day of the eighth moneth The moneth saith the text De corde suo mentitus est Pet. Mart. in Locun pag. 95. noting thereby his sinne which he had devised of his own heart and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel 1 Kings 12.32 33. so making it necessary to Religion among them as the Feast in Iudah appointed by God unquestionably was So then his fact is plainely condemned to be sinne Now every sinne is a transgression of the law of some commandement or other of God either of a particular command concerning the particular fact or some generall command within the generall meaning of some or other of the Commandements of the decalogue But against this particular fact or day of Ieroboams there was no particular command forbidding it It must then be a transgression of the generall meaning of some Commandemnet of the decalogue or part of the generall meaning of some Commandement restraining all Times necessary to Religion to Gods own peculiar appointment which is the thing to be proved 2. A●other instance may be That our Divines usually charge sin upon the Papists for their Holy-dayes not only as some of them are Idolatrous being intended to the honour of Saints and Angels and so to the worship of Creatures or as their number is excessively burdensome to the common sort But as superstitious as they make all of them matters of necessity to Religion upon the Churches command and so their Canonicall houres to some men which we say only the command of God can doe Now if these Dayes and Houres thus determined and observed as necessary to Religion be sin in them It must also be against some commandement of God Particular command there is none forbidding those Dayes and Houres to be observed as necessary to Religion It must then be against a generall commandement against the generall meaning or part of the generall meaning of some Commandement of the Decalogue Importing those Daies and Times to be only necessary to Religion which God himselfe appoints Which is our Antecedent to be proved LXIII An Exception answered If now our Disputers or any for them say That the Papists sin is not against any Commandement of the Decalogue but against the New Testament which making all Dayes and Times equall now allowes none to be appointed or observed as necessary Sol. 1 to Religion To this we answer many things 1. This Exception reaches only the second instance of the Papists sin in appointing and observing their superstitious Holy-dayes and Canonicall houres as necessary to Religion and touches not the former sin of Jeroboams devised Festivall which must needs be against some Commandement of the Decalogue not only for his rejecting the Feast-day appointed by God which is not mentioned in the Text though it may be gathered from thence but for his positive ordaining a day by his own authority as necessary to Religion And this were sufficient to prove our Antecedent Sol. 2 alone if the other instance were not 2. We suppose and so doe some of our Adversaries if not all of them specially the forraigne Divines that all the practicall precepts of the New Testament are reducible to the generall-meaning of some or other of the Commandements of the Decalogue and that the Decalogue is the summe and substance of all Gods Morall and Perpetuall Law And if any would deny it we thinke it may be evinced by the Decalogues being called originally and emphatically and every where The Covenant and the Testimony and from thence the Tables in which it was written The Tables of the Covenant and the Tables of the Testimony and the sacred Ark wherein it was kept The Ark of the Covenant and the Ark of the Testimony Which titles what can they note but that therein was contained the whole summe and substance of Gods Covenant with His people and the whole Testimony of His will toward them in reference to what He would have them doe or not doe in all Ages to come And so generally all Divines that expound by way of Comment or Sermons the Decalogue doe include within the compasse of the Commandements of it of one or other all Gods Morall and Perpetuall Law even the Moralities of the Judicial's and Ceremonials and all and so bring all sins to be within the compasse of the prohibitions contained in one or other of the Commandements Whence it followes that the making of Times necessary to Religion which God hath not appointed being sin both of old as appeares in Ieroboam and now in the Papists It must be against a Commandement of the Decalogue as was said before And so still our Antecedent stands firme our whole Argument with it 3. Whatever might be said of other sins in the Papists or any Sol. 3 yet this appeares to be against a Morall and Perpetuall Law within the Decalogue For being in Ieroboam against a Commandement of the Decalogue and the sin being the same in the Papists the generall meaning is declared to be Perpetuall and Morall in either Age of the Church in the Old Testament and in the New Namely That those Times and those only are to be observed as necessary to Religion which God himselfe appoints The Papists sin therefore is properly against a Commandement of the Decalogue whatever the New Testament say against it besides And this is as much as our Antecedent sayes or our Argument needs It is to no purpose then to alleadge that the Papists transgresse against the New Testament unlesse there had been no such sin at all under the Old Testament 4. Besides all this we must tell them that their Assertion That Sol. 4 the New Testament makes all Dayes and Times equall now and allowes none at all to be observed as necessary to Religion is a false and fallacious assertion if understood generally as we shall expresly and fully shew in the next Chapter where we shall take that Position to task and answer what they bring to prove it Mean time we say in a word 1. that we having already in the former chap. proved a necessity of the determination of a chiefe Time necessary to Religion for all men they apparantly beg the question if they only answer that there

Text reads it And vindicated That Law which said and that the Article ὁ will agree to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is exprest in the verse before as well as to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not named we answer This variation will neither prejudice our cause nor our Argument at all if it be rightly considered For of what Law speakes the Apostle It must needs be granted of the written Law Where say we either in the Book of Moses at large or particularly in the Decalogue and so in the two Tables of stone Not the former for then the forementioned Ceremonious Iew might again have come upon him with this That Law which sayth Thou shalt not kill sayth also Thou shalt not eat swines flesh so by eating swines flesh a man is a transgressor and breaker of the whole Law For this is as well found in the Law of Moses written by him as the other Therefore of necessity it must be meant of the Decalogue the Law of the Tenne Commandements considered as one Law together and so though the severall Commandements be so many distinct branches with reference to each other Yet are they joyned in one bulk and body together as one perpetuall Law as spoken altogether and written altogether and that in such a manner as no other Lawes were Neither will it be possible to satisfie the Apostles drift and make his argument good unlesse we thus interpret it And therefore we must needs take Liberty to account both Papists transgressours for breaking the 2d. Commandement Because he that said or that Law that said Thou shalt have no other Gods but me said also Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image And so our adversaries transgressours for breaking the fourth Commandement Because he that said or that Law that said Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain said also Remember the Sabbath Day to Sanctifie it c. Prim. p. 180. 181. Nor is this place eluded by the answers which one of our adversaries attempts or rather makes a shew to give it For he meddles not at all with the Force of the Apostles argumentation But insists principally upon the words of offending in one point having first denied the inobservation of the Sabbath to be under the New Testament a sinne because the Law so farre as it commands the Sabbath obligeth not any more Mean time he touches not at all in his answer the strength of the reason whereby the Apostle proves his sentence But contrary in the allegation of our argument he enervates both it and the Text it selfe particularly viz. The scope of it namely by altering the Apostles words and instead of instancing in two Commandements of the Decalogue as the Apostle doth vers 11. wherein we place the strength of our argumentation as we have said before he only generally saith and that in another Character then the Text is in as if it were our inference not the Apostles The same God which injoynes the one of these Points hath injoyned all the rest By which generall expression because a heedlesse reader may happen to be deceived we make bold to aske him what points be those the Apostle means Did not he himself say for us that he speaks of the Law of the Decalogue and if he would deny it the instances vers 11. will constraine him again to grant it whereupon we urge him thus further If Saint James speake of the Decalogue then of the words of the Decalogue as God said them or as the Law said them as they were spoken by God and written by him And if so then either he must deny the fourth Commandement to have been with the rest spoken by God and written by him or deny Saint Iames his argument that because one Commandement of the Decalogue binds now therefore another doth or deny his own denyall that the fourth Commandement in the very words of it is now in force let him take his choice And if now himself or any for him think to urge us by the same argument to the old Jewish seventh Day as commanded by the fourth Commandement which they do oft and continually we must as oft and continually deny that it was commanded in the Decalogue directly and as the substance of the fourth Commandement and of this we shall give good account in due time and place Mean time we let passe the residue of what he saith to this place of Saint Iames because it goes altogether upon that supposition And counting our selves to have made good our two first Testimonies of the Prophet and Apostle we come to a Third of an ancient Father Namely Irenaeus who thus speakes for us God 3. Irenaeus ● 4. c. 31. the better to prepare us to Eternall Life did by himselfe proclaime the Decalogue to all the people equally which therefore is to be of full force amongst us as having rather been enlarged then dissolved by our Saviours comming in the flesh Upon which words the Historians evasion is frigide and flash when thus he glosses Hist of Sab. Part 1. p. 66. Which words of Irenaeus if rightly considered must be referred to that part of the fourth Commandement which is indeed Morall or else the fourth Commandement must not be reckoned as a part or member of the Decalogue because it did receive no such enlargment as did the rest of the Commandements by our Saviours Preaching but a Dissolution rather by his practise But this Glosse corrupts the Text making an exception where the Father made none and besides it proceeds upon a misprision of the sence and scope of that Commandement supposing the seventh day Sabbath to be directly commanded in it and one in seven to be but Ceremoniall whereas the contrary we hope shall be manifested in both which if it be done this Commandement hath as well received enlargement as the rest By the substitution of the Lords-day in stead of the old Sabbath and the Religious observation of it But of this in time and place convenient 4. The adverse party themselves C. D. p. 8. Lastly One even of our Adversaries thus pleads our cause The Precepts of the Morall Law are summarily comprehended in the Decalogue which have this Prerogative peculiar to them that they were delivered not by Moses but by God himselfe and by him written in Tables of stone and preserved in the Ark to shew their degnity above others and to note out the Perpetuitie note that of observance which was due unto them This is an ingenuous confession if he would be constant to it But whether it be his misprision or his misdevotion to the fourth Commandement he afterward comes in with his Exceptions That this is to be understood of the Decalogue as far as it is Morall Though in so saying he doth either expresly contradict himselfe or speak non-sense in one of these Assertions But because this Exception lies chiefly against the fourth Commandement we will remit

to be found in any of them to this purpose no not so much as for any thing of it not for the particular day though of this the Laodicean Councell which was provinciall speakes plainly as we shall heare hereafter much lesse for the Frequency and least of all for the Continuance As also because our adversaries who ascribe much to Generall Councells yet dispute one while against the Day as changeable by the present Church another while against the number that it may be one of eight or of six or of some other number But specially against the Continuance against which indeed their greatest spight is And when we alledge any Provinciall or Nationall Councells averring the Divine authority of the Lords day and the totall sanctification of it and so making Canons not to ordaine but to confirme those determinations they reject them as but partiall Authorities and not as speaking the sence of the Church universall Therefore we say again the Church universall either took it for granted in all the Generall Councells that those determinations were already made to their hands by God and His word in the Old and New Testaments and that Christians generally did acknowledge and observe them or else it sinned in not sufficiently discharging the trust committed to it about this determination in not making it expresly or not transmitting it clearely to posterity If they took the matter to be of no importance they sinned undeniably in so undervaluing it If they took it to be of importance and yet took no care of it they sinned yet more What remaines then but that the very silence of the Church universall in so many Generall Councells as have been held from Constantines Time proclaimes that they esteemed it as sundry provinciall Councells speake we shall heare concluded before by God and Christ and the Apostles in the word and found it in the common acknowledgment and practise of Christians Which as it decayed any where the provinciall and nationall Councells took order to declare the truth and make sanctions for a more conscionable observation And we for our parts cannot think otherwise but that God in His providence so disposed of it that no Generall Councell should take upon them to meddle with this determination least their Injunctions only for confirmation should be misse-interpreted to be an institution and a determination as some of our disputers do almost make as much of a constitution of Constantines for the observation of the Lords day But hereby he hath the more fully and manifestly reserved the authority to himself and to be sought for in His written word XLII Arg. 10. Even the Apostles themselves And being come thus far let us with our Readers good leave make bold to carry this argument one step higher even concerning the universall Church in the most ancient and primitive Apostolike Times taking in the Apostles and all or rather make a new argument for clearer distinctions sake Thus If the determination of the necessary sufficient Time for Religion belong to the Church then it belonged to the Apostles and the primitive Church Governours to make it for all Christians But it belonged not to the Apostles and Primitive Church Governours to make it for all Christians Ergo It belonged not to the Church The consequence cannot be denyed for no succeeding generation of the Church can have this authority no not for their own age if the Apostles and Pimitive Church Governours had it not The Antecedent is thus confirmed That authority which they did not practise in a matter of greatest importance to Religion the Apostles and Primitive Church had not But they did not practise the making of this determination Ergo They had no such authority The Major cannot be denyed without charging the whole Primitive Church and then all the Apostles also with grievous sinne The Minor is thus further confirmed That which the Apostles did in all matters of great importance to Religion they left cleare and sufficient record of for the practise of Christians But there is not left any cleare and sufficient record of the Apostles determination of the necessary and sufficient Time for Religion unto Christians Ergo The Apostles did not make this determination Again the Major connot be gainsaid without charging upon the Apostles that guilt of sin even of great neglect So many of them writing Gospels and Epistles for Christians to put in no word in an authenticke record to let Christians in all succeeding generations understand what they had determined according to the authority wherewith they were entrusted by God concerning the chiefe Time for Religion necessary and sufficient for Frequency and Continuance The Minor is no lesse cleare Our adversaries take paines to prove and we stick not to grant them that the Apostles have not in Scripture nor any where else left any cleare sufficient authenticke record of any determination of theirs in either of these respects Nay they will not so much as yeeld that the Lords day for the particular Day and for Frequency every week was certainly and infallibly so much as practised by all the Apostles For divers of them quarrell and dispute against all the places that mention any thing of it in the New Testament Therefore say we again the Apostles were far from determining either the Frequency or the particular day or the Continuance specially of which the greatest controversie is yet this or namely the Continuance they ought to have determined as carefully as any thing if it had been left to them It being of greatest Importance as appeares besides all that we have formerly discoursed of the differance between two houres or an houre or halfe an houre or lesse of a Day and the whole Continuance of a Day for Religion even by our adversaries eagernesse against us for urging the necessity of a whole Dayes Continuance and our complaints of them for their scantying of God and soules by disputing for lesse To avoyde then superstition on the one hand and prophanesse on the other the Apostles and Primitive Church if they had had the authority of determining the Continuance ought to have determined it and would have determined it if it had belonged to them and would have made an authenticke cleare and sufficient record of it if they had determined it But they have done none of all this as both our adversaries and we also jointly say Ergo we conclude and we cannot imagine how they can possibly avoyde the dint of this argument besides all the other That the Apostles and Primitive Church had no such authority to determine this necessary and sufficient chiefe solemne Time for Religion unto Christians But that the Word of God even in the Old Testament that is in the fourth Commandement for one whole Day in seven had done it for perpetuity and they acknowledged it and observed it and medled not with any alteration of it or making any new determination And that as for the particular Day they preached