Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	appear_v	day_n	great_a	2,710	5	3.1342	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78421	The account audited and discounted: or, a vindication of the three-fold diatribee, of [brace] 1. Supersition, 2. Will-worship, 3. Christmas festivall. Against Doctor Hammonds manifold paradiatribees. / By D.C. preacher of the Word at Billing-Magn. in Northamptonshire.	Cawdrey, Daniel, 1588-1664.	1658 (1658)	Wing C1621; Thomason E1850_1; ESTC R209720	293,077	450

he means it thus n. 15. They made no Laws for the observing of Festivals but refers the original of them to custome but the Doctor speaks onely of Apostolical practice so he sayes But first Socrates says nothing of the Apostolical practice but refers it wholly to the custome of several places and people It seemes to me sayes he as many other things were introduced by a custome in divers places so the Feast of Easter by custome in several people had a peculiar different observation Why because none of the Apostles had made any Law concerning it But sure if the Apostles did change it from a Jewish to a Christian Festival and did themselves observe it as exemplary to the Churches they did thereby at first give as good as a Law and make an institution for them to observe And I am perswaded that upon this ground of Apostolical tradition and observation came in all the Superstition in after ages in making them Holy times and parts of Divine Worship c. and they established them as a Law as Socrates said believing them to be Apostolical 2. The truth seemes to me to lie here The Apostles did often frequent the Assemblies of the Jews in the Temple upon their solemnest Festivals as a greater opportunity of fishing in a wide Sea a multitude of people as at Pentecost Acts 2. and again Acts 20 16 Paul hasted to be at Jerusalem at the day of Pentecost for the same reason which custome of the Festivals continuing till the destruction of Jerusalem the Apostles did condiscend to be at them while they lived amongst them Whereupon the following Church seeing this example of their practice took it as a Rule to observe the Feasts especially the Jewish Christians in Asia being tenacious of their old customes and so kep● the very same day the Jews did which other Churches after the Jews were grown obstinate finding such a custome of the Feast in hatred of the Jews changed into the Lords day as Augustine observes Epist 119 Can. Nicen. de Fest Pasch by Constantines perswasion But see the tenaciousness of men for Traditions of their Fathers The Doctor cares not what he can to weaken or question the Authority of the Lords day to strengthen and stablish his Easter Feast p. 245. n. 17 It will be hard for the Diatribist to produce any other evidence for the weekly Christian Sabbath or Lords day then the custome and practice Apostolical the New Testament hath no where any giving of Law conerning it But sure it will be easie for the Diatribist to manifest a palpable difference between the Lords day and his Easter out of Scriture the best Record beside what is said out of prime Antiquity For 1. We finde the Name there as a day of Christian Assemblies but not a word of Easter 2. We finde the Apostles practice and observation of it but never of Easter 3. We finde grounds in Scripture for the institution or designation of the day but nothing for Easter but rather the contrary prohibition The grounds of the weekly Christian Sabbath it 's well he will allow the Lords-day so honourable a Title he cannot say so much for his Easter Feast and some of his way would have scornfully called it Your Saint Sabbath The grounds I say are these 1. For a solemn day of rest which is a Sabbath we have the fourth Commandment morall in the judgement of its greatest enemies 2. We have it granted that the day must not be less then one in seven yea one day in seven is granted moral in the fourth Commandment by the Doctor * p. 262. n. 6. It is equitably inferred that a Christian should at least set apart one day in seven for our great Christian purposes the first day of the week c. himself 3. Christ in Matt. 5. came to stablish and not destroy this Law amongst the rest 4. We have Christian exercises performed on the day beside prayer and preaching and Lords Supper collections for the poor are ordered to be on this Day which presupposes the day * That which was done by the Apostles if it were not a rule for ever yet was an effect of such a rule formerly given by Christ and interpretable by this practice to be so in his 4. Quaer s 94. before designed by Christ or his Apostles All this together amounts to a Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or institution And lastly the uniform observation of this day in all ages in all Churches must needs presuppose it to be a Divine Ordination Not one of all these can he truly prove applyable to his Easter Feast Away then with such unworthy comparisons But we shall meet it again ere long And yet Isaid p. 245. n. 19. and say again The observation of Easter hath better Antiquity then this of Christmas though not Apostolical He answers The Apostolical practice being so evident there can be no doubt then the Analogy holding the argument proceeding in full force from one Christian Festival to another will certainly justifie the observation c. The question is not now of the observation of either but the Antiquity so that this was a meer evasion There are histories and traditions and ancients that speak of Easter in the second Centurie but not one word of Christmas and the Doctor hath produced none of that Antiquity for it which to me is a good evidence there is none And as for Analogy from one Festival to another it holds as well thus If there can be produced neither Apostolical institution nor observation of Easter as a Christian Festival as is probably evinced above then much less is there any ground for the institution or observation of Christmas as an Holy-day But this is but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the main business When I granted the Antiquity of some Festivals in the third or fourth Century might argue they had nothing of the corruption of the Roman Antichristain See adhering to them The Doctor is overjoy'd n. 1. p. 247. and congratulates the unexpected success of his paper But without any cause for it wrought nothing with me being of that opinion before that Rome was not at that time Antichristian But to discover my meaning and to cool his boasting I believe the first Institutors of Festivals had a good Intention to commemorate the mercies of God bestowed on us in Christ making them onely circumstances of Worship though some Superstitions did soon after creep into the observation of them But after ages declining more and more till Antichrist got into the throne those Festivals I meant comparatively had at first nothing of that corruption which after adhered to and overwhelmed them both in their Institution and also in their observation Neither did I mean that the Festivals as they were lately observed by some in England had nothing of the Roman See as now it is corrupted having charged the observation of them by the Dr. and

day to be no sin I intended it ad bominem to the Doctor supposing and making the day to be an Holy-day and part of Worship as the Sabbath and Paschal day were wherein to mistake the day was criminous Yet let the Doctor consider how near he and others have been to sin upon the mistake of the day in the Collect for Christmas day they used to pray thus Almighty God which hast given us this day thy Son to be born of a pure Virgin c. If Christ was not born on this day as it 's very uncertain is not this a manifest untruth telling it not onely to men but to God too in their holy Prayers But enough of that The Superstition and Will-worship are the crimes that were charged upon his observation of the Festival oftentimes before and here more fully and directly but the Doctor will take no notice of it but leaps over five or six leaves together p. 264. n. 14 And mark how he excuses this omission What Superstition is charged by Chemnitius on Papists observation of their Holy-dayes is all answered before it be produced by this consideration that Chemnitius allows this and other Festivals which is all he contended for who undertook not to be advocate for the Legend or Calendar of Papists But first though Chemnitius did allow of his Festivals yet not of his Superstition in the observation of them any more in him then in Papists 2. The Doctor hath taken upon him to be advocate for some Festivals which are in the Papists Calendar at least as well as in ours in England and pleads for them with the same arguments that they do 3. The same Superstitions charged upon Papists observation of their Holy-days are by me there charged upon some yea many amongst us in some of those particulars and the instances are all taken out of the Doctors Tract of Festivals and so intended him for one of the guilty persons but because it seems I did not name the Doctor he takes no notice of all this I shall therefore now charge home and lay it so in his way as between two walls that he cannot avoid the seeing of it unless he will tergiversari turn back or else fly over all as formerly he hath done or rather which I wish fall down before the Truth and give Glory to God But before I come to demonstrate that the Doctor is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self-condemned of those two crimes I desire it may be remembred first That I having set down several Species of Superstition p. 6. s 5 c. and most of them taken out of the Doctor himself in his Tract of Superst he puts in no exception against them but seemes if silence be consent to grant them all Some at least he assents to in this discourse p. 30. n. 30. 32. 2. That here again I having shewed the several ways of the Superstition charged by Chemnitius on the observation of Holy-days by the Papists and applied them in particular to himself he neither gives consent to them by his silence or willfully declines to vindicate himself from the charge For if he could not assent unto them it concern'd him to have denied and opposed them in both the places as dangerous grounds to conclude against his own opinion and practice and had given me occasion thereby to confirm them by Reason and Testimonies of Orthodox Divines which being not by him done I might the rather take them as granted and onely borrow the propositions from him and leave him or the Reader to make up the conclusion as thus first To place more holiness in days then God hath placed in them is superstitious So Chemnitius asserts so I laid it down Superst Sect. 10. and it is generally the judgement of our Divines upon this sufficient reason because God onely can Sanctifie things or times for the Sanctifying of those that use them This is thus far yeilded by the Dr. himself That to place more holiness in them then is due to them is faulty Superst s 50. If I count it holy in that degree then I offend not implying if he did more he then offended and being there provoked by me to shew what degrees of holiness a Church or Person puts upon things or times he again waves it in his last as able to asign none and then the proposition is undeniable To place holiness or more holiness in dayes then God hath placed in them is Superstitious But the Doctor and his Symmists places holiness in days where God hath placed none and more then God hath placed in them That God hath placed no Holiness in his Festival is confessed by denying Christ or his Apostles to have instituted it Of Fest Sect. 28 77. That he places holiness in it appears by his own words when he says The day is to be esteemed above other days of the year Lords days too it seems consecrating it from common to sacred uses Ibid. s 59. that for his opinion and judgement And that in practice he placed more at least equal holiness in it with the Lords day he confesses That the day hath been observed if not much more certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the year c. Sect. 24. Yea more strictly said I with more solemn services with stricter cessation from sports then on the Lords day on which sports were permited but no touching of Cards or Dice that day Ibid. The Assumption then is justified the Doctor does place more holiness in his Festivals then God hath placed in it Therefore he is Superstitious 2. To esteem the observation of that day and the services done on that day to be better more pleasing and acceptable to God than the observation of any other day the Lords day it self and then the services done on other days is a superstitious vanity So Chemnitius So I asserted Superst s 13. to which the Doctor enters no discent or if he should I would thus confirm it because it fastens some promise on Christ which he hath not made in the Gospel The Drs. own words in a like case Superst s 45. But the Doctor esteems the observation of that day and the services done on that day to be better more pleasing and acceptable to God then c. For the observation of the day he makes it a Free-will-offering to dedicate and consecrate the day to God and asserts of the Institution of it See this account p. 197. n. 4. p. 229. n. 14. more and greater acceptance c. It is more then lawful pious in it self Sect. 77 And the services to be more acceptable to God then on other days results from his frequent assertion That such services being not commanded are the more acceptable because voluntary So he says When in the service of God a man out of a pious affection shall do any thing else beside what God hath commanded by any particular precept this action of his is to be accounted so much more

teaching consisted This might be true of some false teachers that preached up the Ceremonial Law after it was abolished as still obliging by divine precept but there was no colour for the Pharisees to pretend to a divine precept in their new Traditions being known not to be commanded by God in the Jewish Law and therefore they call'd them onely Traditions of the Elders They being men of great repute for knowledge and piety did invent and then by their own example commend some new wayes of worshipping God and then by their Authority they had got in their Disciples hearts as pious and devout men did lay their own doctrines upon them and they stooped and were subjected to them They did not therefore so much as pretend them to be the Will and Commandments of God sure our Saviour would not have been silent in such a blasphemy but onely that they would be pleasing and acceptable to God as being more then he commanded which is the opinion of all formal Hypocrites in their Will-worship And I cannot but wonder the Doctor should hold our that they pretended their Doctrines to be Divine precepts when he makes them differ from the Karraim in this that they transcended the Law in their Worship in uncommanded Worship Now to say their Worship or doctrines of Worship were Divine precepts was to derogate from that height of excellency which themselves and the Doctor conceited to be in them Let him confider it But to convince him the more I could tell him what Calvins judgement was of that text Matt. 15.9 Omnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic damnari minimè dubium est but the Doctor will easily slight his judgement I shall therefore give him the gloss of a learned Papist whom he more regards It is Tolet on Luc. 11. Annotat. 84. The Priests had brought in many novel things though Moses had with great terrour threatned them not to adde any thing of which number of additions were those washings There was a double fault 1. The innovation it self was no slight fault c. 2. Another was their Superstition The Pharisees had put in those washings not for any natural or civil cleanliness but as pertaining to Religion who so did contemn them were judged to offend against Gods Worship and whoso did observe them seemed chiefly to regard Gods Worship in them But this was in no wise lawful c. for Christ rejected these washings as superstitious Mark 7. In vain do they Worship me teaching the doctrines and precepts of men i. e. such things as men set up of themselves against the Commandment of God Not as the Doctor such things which though they were the doctrines and commandments of men yet were imposed as Commandments of God Judge Reader which is the better Interpreter But supposing not yielding they did hold them out as Divine precepts that I said was an abuse of them yet the fault might be they made them parts of Worship that would make them more destructive And this our Saviour particularly chargeth upon the Pharisees In vain do they Worship me They made their Traditions to be parts of Worship I asked whether placing Worship in the observation of those ordinances though not imposed as Gods Commands were not an abuse of them to destruction The Doctor answers as a man amused by asking me p. 111. n. 8. What I mean by Worship if such Worship as a man may justly prescribe or practice ceremonies perfectly lawful or more what is sure to be accepted c. 't is certain it were no abuse Here Reader observe 1. That the Doctor grants a man may justly prescribe and then practise his own prescribed Worship 2. That he calls Ceremonies Worship which hitherto he call'd onely Circumstances of Worship But he knows I mean it of Worship what then If he mean the commanded Worship of God then his question implies a contradiction for whatsoever the Worship of God is placed in that is taught as a command of God or else it were not Gods prescribed Worship which yet it is supposed to be I mean it not of commanded Worship it were ridiculous indeed to ask such a question but of uncommanded Worship devised of his own will against the will of God may not a man devise false Worship and yet not pretend it to be imposed by Divine precept Surely Papists do so in many of their Will-worships holding them our not as Divine commands but as things very pleasing to God and rewardable by him c. Upon this my question falls to which he sayes nothing but gives as strange a reason for whatsoever the Worship of God is placed in that is taught as a command of God else it were not Gods prescribed Worship Which is proved false by the former instance and begs the question That no man places Worship in any thing but he must teach it as a Command of God which I believe the Doctor will contradict by his own practice placing the Worship of God in some things and yet denying it to be a Command of God I shall take another instance from himself in the next number n. 9. He falsly supposes abstinence from marriage to be meant in Col. 2.23 See p. 107. n. 3. n. 10. It is certain abstinence from marriage may be lawfully practised by him that can bear it all the error is in imposing it on others c. Suppose now a man does not impose it upon others yet places the Worship of God in it to Worship God by it as Papists do whether the Doctor do so we shall hear anon I would ask whether this be not an error to place Worship in that which God doth not command Whether Col. 2.23 be a setting down the abuse and defining wherein it consists or no shall be tryed hereafter Sect. 6. Yet let us hear wherein the Doctor places the danger c. WHat ever is repeated in this Section by the Doctor is fully answered in the last and the Doctors notion I still say is singular and his own That the false teachers held out their doctrines as Commandments of God which no Interpreters of the place do touch upon I shall onely observe what Estius notes upon the text answering this question Seeing the Apostle speaks here of Legal Rites instituted by God how doth he call them the precepts and doctrines of men which in the Scripture are taken in the evil sense as also are the Traditions of men viz. those things which are invented and delivered by an humane sense and spirit He gives divers answers 1. Some took the place to be meant of the superstitious precepts of the Gentile Philosophy or Simonian School so did the Doctor p. 110. n 5. at least in part But this exposition is refuted For those precepts were Jewish Touch not c. as those afore Let no man judge you in meat or drink which without doubt was spoken of Jewish observations 2. Others answer thus Those Institutions of the Mosaical law being