A59693:392
Theses Sabbaticæ, or, The doctrine of the Sabbath wherein the Sabbaths I. Morality, II.…
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 moral law as a rule of life to a believer, occasionally and distinctly handled / by Thomas Shepard ...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 ...
London: printed by T.R. and E.M. for John Rothwell, 1650
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Thesis 125.
When those that plead for the morality of the fourth Command, in respect of a seventh day, would prove it to be moral, because it is part of the Decalogue and set in the heart of it, with a special note of remembrance affixed to it, &c. Mr. Ironside and others do usually dash all such reasonings out of countenance, with this answer, viz. That by this argument, That particular seventh from the creation is moral, which we see is changed; for (say they) that also is set in the heart of the Decalogue, with a special note of remembrance also. But the reply from what hath ben said is easy, viz. That that also is indeed moral; only 'tis secondarily moral, not primarily; and therefore (as we have shown) was mutable and changeable, the primary morality in a seventh immutably remaining; the moral duty of observing a seventh day is not changed, but only the day. If Mr. Primrose could prove that there is nothing else commanded in this fourth command, but only that particular seventh from the creation, he had then enough to show that (this day being justly changed) the Commandment ⟨p. 131⟩is not moral of perpetual,1 but out or this particular seventh which now is changed; himself acknowledgeth that out of it may be gathered the morality of a day, and why not of a seventh day also as well as of a day? He saith that it is a bold assertion to say that this genus of a seventh is herein commanded: But why is it not as bold to affirm the same of a day? for out of that particular seventh whence he would raise the genus of a day, we may as easily, and far more rationally collect the genus of a seventh day.
When those that plead for the morality of the fourth Command, in respect of a seventh day, would prove it to be morall, because it is part of the Decalogue and set in the heart of it, with a speciall note of remembrance affixed to it, &c. Mr. Ironside and others doe usually dash all such reasonings out of countenance, with this answer, viz. That by this argument, That particular seventh from the creation is morall, which we see is changed; for (say they) that also is set in the heart of the Decalogue, with a speciall note of remembrance also. But the reply from what hath ben said is easie, viz. That that also is indeed morall; only 'tis secondarily morall, not primarily; and therefore (as we have shewn) was mutable and changeable, the primary morality in a seventh immutably remaining; the morall duty of observing a seventh day is not changed, but only the day. If Mr. Primrose could prove that there is nothing else commanded in this fourth command, but only that particular seventh from the creation, he had then enough to shew that (this day being justly changed) the Commandment