Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	day_n	holy_a	sabbath_n	14,086	5	10.0894	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45394	An account of Mr. Cawdry's triplex diatribe concerning superstition, wil-worship, and Christmass festivall by H. Hammond.	Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.	1655 (1655)	Wing H511; ESTC R28057	253,252	314

and commemorate Christ on that day What could passion or interest or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have suggested more unadvisedly then this His 2d dislike and exception is that having formerly founded times or dayes designed to publike worship on the equity of the 4th Commandment I should now devolve the observation of this festival to obedience to the lawes of the Church and so reduce it as a duty to the 5th Commandment and upon this as an especial advantage he is pleased to expatiate But the matter is clear enough and was so till he had taken pains to involve it The difference is very conceivable and intelligible betwixt time or times for Gods service generally considered and this or that particular time That God should have some times assigned for his service is of the very law of Nature and so much of morality there is fundamental to the positive precept of the weekly sabbath in the 4 Commandment Nay farther the 4th Commandment being given to the Iewes for the observing one day in seven as a fit and moderate proportion of time to be required of every Jew it might equitably be inferred that a Christian should at least set a part one day in seven for our great Christian purposes the first day of the week on which Christ rose from the dead And accordingly I suppose it instituted by the Apostles of Christ But then as among the Jewes beside the weekly sabbath required by the fourth Commandment they had many other times of festivity and fasting some appointed by God himself in the time of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others instituted by men and yet constantly observed by Gods people and accepted by God and some approved by Christ himself and all this without any prejudice to the fourth Commandment though not by any force of that so now still under the Gospel nothing hinders but that the Church of God by the power left to and deposited with them may ordain Christian feasts and fasts and obedience be paid thereto by all dutiful meek sons of the Church and this obedience be in them that are thus under authority no act of Will-worship or spontaneity but of honour and observance to this ordinance of the Church and so a duty of the fift Commandment As for that which he addes in this matter that we Christians are by Christ reduced to the fourth Commandment as for one day of seven to be holy so for our allowance of six daies for our own works 1. It hath not the least appearance of truth in it for where did Christ reduce us to the fourth Commandment and t is visible what the consequence must be in affirming it even an obligation to the Jewish Sabbath for that certainly was the subject of the fourth Commandment 2. It is no way pertinent to the matter in hand for supposing Christians allowed six daies for their own works t is yet visible that some of these six may by the free act of particular men be used or by the power of the Christian Church be set a part to Christian uses as well as some days were not only by God himself but by the Governors of the Jewes Judas Maccabeus and others set a part for the publike service of God in the old Testament at which time t is by all confest that the fourth Commandment was in force in all parts of it A second exception I shall note in this § p. 157. when upon these words of mine concerning the possible mistake of the day that that will be pardonable in those that verily think they are not mistaken and that in them that do performe the businesse of the day as compleatly on a mistaken day as on the true the excuse of blamelesse ignorance will wash away greater errors then this he presently replies Does not this sound somewhat like the Papists doctrine of venial sins and upon that occasion is put in minde of Bellarmines defence against the peril of idolatry in the Masse in case the bread be not transubstantiated And then he askes Can any ignorance be blamelesse against the Law of God or wash away any error without the blood of Christ But to this the answer is obvious and the fallacy presently discoverable For 1. he that talks of venial or pardonable sins must not be presumed to exclude the blood of Christ those sins are pardonable under the Gospel for which that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was paid and such are all sins that are reconcileable with true repentance or the sincerity of a regenerate state But then 2. I am no way assured that it is a sin so much as of ignorance to mistake in the day of Christs birth every mistake is not a sin but only that which is a breach of some law and therefore I suppose it is that the Diatribist was compelled to say Can any ignorance be blamelesse against a law of God But then I professe not to know any law of God against which it is a sin though but of ignorance to mistake that day for the annual day of Christs birth which really is not the day And I now desire to be informed of which of the ten Commandments or any other law of Gods in the Old or New Testament this is a breach When he tells me this I shall attend him more diligently to the remainder of this Section and answer his instance of so weighty consideration about the very day of the Jews passeover of which he acknowledge that the very day was as strictly commanded as the businesse it self and so the error must be an error against a law whereas he as certainly knowes that this day of Christs birth is by none so much as pretended to be so commanded What remains concerning Chemnitius's charge of Superstition on Papists observation of their holy daies is all answered before it be produced by this one consideration that Chemnitius as a Lutheran is by the Diatribist confest to allow this and other Festivals For then hath he granted all that I contend for who undertook not to be advocate for the Legend or Calendar of the Papists Sect. 15. Of riot Christian joyes no way contrary to our Festivals Riot as separable from Christmas as the Lords day Heathen customes cannot be objected Gods judgments vainly urged for arguments The charge of want of hospitality on those that retain festivities The hospitality at Christmas a pledge of it all the year after Reformation of excesse without abolition of the Festival Attempt to reform previous to abolition The Agapae no example for abolishing Festivals Cures for diseases excisions only for desperate spreading evils No cards on Christmas day as much strictnesse on Christmass not more sacredness then on the Lords day No design of making the Lords day no institution of the Apostles Neither Superstition nor hypocrisie in abstaining from Cards on Christmas day WHat now followes in the 17th § and so on to the 27. is all to the head of

as hath formerly been said and from thence the Esseni had their title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chasidim or Asidaei and they were supposed to have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their over-measure performances more then the Law exacted from them and so that is an example of what I now speak of the free-will performances of mercy The Second shall be from S. Pauls language 2 Cor. 8. 2. where speaking of the Corinthians equalling the Macedonians in liberality to the poor Jewes he gives them no command to do so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I speak not by way of precept v. 8. but only his advice or opinion his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just as in the case of single life 1 Cor. 7. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have no commandment of the Lord but I give my advice And if the Corinthians did observe and practise according to this advice if they did give in proportion to the Macedonians or in case they did not yet still the Macedonians themselves which certainly were thus exemplarily liberal and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their own accord v. 3. without any obligation of precept lying upon them and yet farther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above what they were well able to do are again an instance of doing more in this kind then either all men at all times or they at this were obliged to have done and so this was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in them Now to this instance of works of mercy he first resolves that it may be answered in part that it belongs not to the question which is of worship not of actions of civil life But to this I reply 1. that an answer in part is no satisfactory answer and so this professing to be no more needs not be considered 2. that the parity of reason holds from one act of Christian performance to another that if in duties of charity between fellow Christians there may be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 somewhat above the commands of the law of Christ there may also by analogy be the same in matters of Christian worship there being neither reason nor revelation of Christs will not yet of his allowance to one more then to the other But then 3dly This of works of mercy is generally defined to be in a Christian performance of it an act of worship set in the front of such by Christ Mat 6. 1. appointed to be exercised on the Lords day as a work of the day 1 Cor. 16. 2. and accordingly interpreted by Christ to be done to himself Mat. 25. 40. and so by S. Paul styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sacrifice an acceptable sacrifice Phil. 4. 18. Heb. 13. 16. And yet 4. to remove all scruple I wish that after the custome of the Primitive Apostolick Church this almes be presented to God in the offertory at the Sacrament and then as it will certainly be a branch of Christian worship so my instance shall be set particularly to that sort of almes and it will certainly hold in that as exactly as in any other But this imperfect answer being not confided in he is pleased to adde more 1. That the question is not of a degree of an act of obedience commanded as Almes-giving is but of the act it self if not commanded nor allowed in the speciall nor in the generall But this answer cannot be of any manner of use to the Diatribist For 1. The question being certainly this Whether Ceremonies and Festivals in a Church are criminous if they be not commanded by God and ceremonies and Festivals being gestures and times and so circumstances not acts of worship 't is visible that the question is not onely of the act it self 2. The reason being the same of circumstances and of degrees of one accessorie and of another it follows that if uncommanded degrees may be lawfull uncommanded circumstances must be lawfull also 3. Though almes-giving in general be commanded yet as long as the degrees be uncommanded the argument from the lawfulness of those degrees will hold to the justifying of Ceremonies or Festivals because as almes-giving is commanded so praying to and praising of God is commanded also and these ceremonies and Festivals are as visibly circumstances of prayer and praising as these degrees are of almes-giving Nay 4. To take away all possibility that this answer should be usefull to him the instance which I set of almesgiving is of an uncommanded act for supposing the utmost degree of the uncommanded mercy to be once defined and determined and suppose me to exceed that proportion in giving 't is evident that that exceeding is an act first and then an uncommanded act an act for so is every exercise or work of mercy and this giving is such an exercise and an uncommanded act for so is all which is not under precept and so this is supposed to be and herein it is perfectly answerable to the free-will offering among the Jews Sacrifice or offering was a determined and commanded duty and every exercise of that above what was commanded was a freewill oblation and as such accepted by God and so it is here As for his cautious restriction added in the close of that answer which pretends that the question is of such acts which as they are not commanded so neither are they allowed in special or in general he must needs know that this is an imposing on the reader For 1. The question being of the lawfulness of uncommanded acts and allowance whether general or special being yet no command for no man is bound to do all that he is allowed to do t is evident that the acknowledging the lawfulness of allowed acts as they must needs be lawfull if they be allowed is the acknowledging the lawfulness of some uncommanded acts for such are they which are no more then allowed 2. For the clearing of this I shall offer the Diatribist this Dilemma Are these high but uncommanded degrees of mercy allowed either in general or special now under the Gospel or are they not If they are not then this cautionary clause was very impertinently added and my instance though it proceeded of degrees which are not thus allowed yet proceedings of degrees which are not commanded was a valid instance But if they are allowed as I suppose by his caution he will affirme why then it seems there is either general or special allowance still under the Gospel for uncommanded acts and then there is as much for them under Christ as there was under Moses for freewill offerings and so the Leviticalness of the freewill offerings consisted not in this that they were thus allowed and then this was no part of that Levitical Law nor consequently of that which was abolished as before he had affirmed and so the Diatribist's whole scheme is demolished or rather fallen asunder of its own accord as all infirme fabricks are apt to do What followes in