A63997:213
The Christian Sabbath defended against a crying evil in these times of the antisabitarians…
The Christian Sabbath defended against a crying evil in these times of the antisabitarians of our age: wherein is showed that the morality of the fourth Commandment is still in force to bind Christians unto the sanctification of the Sabbath day. Written by that learned assertor of the truth, William Twice D.D. late prolocutor to the Assembly of Divines.The Christian Sabbath defended against a crying evil in these times of the antisabitarians of our age: wherein is shewed that the morality of the fourth Commandement is still in force to bind Christians unto the sanctification of the Sabbath day. Written by that learned assertor of the truth, William Twisse D.D. late prolocutor to the Assembly of Divines.
London: printed for Thomas Pierrepont, 1652
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.
A FOURTH DIGRESSION MAKING GOOD Mr. PERKINS his Arguments for the Divine institution of the Lords Day, against the answer made unto them by Doctor RIVETVS.
A FOVRTH DIGRESSION MAKING GOOD Mr. PERKINS his Arguments for the Divine institution of the Lords Day, against the answer made unto them by Doctor RIVETVS.
1Their first Argument saith he, is taken from the appellation of the Lords Day; I suppose, saith Master Perkins, it is called the Lords Day, as the last supper of Christ is called the Lords Supper for two causes. First, as God rested the seventh day after the creation, so Christ having finished the work of the new creation, rested on this day from the work of Redemption. Secondly, as Christ did substitute the last supper in room of the passover, so he substituted the first day of the week in room of the Jews Sabbath to be a day set apart to his own worship. To this Doctor Rivet answereth after this manner.2 First, he denies that there is the same reason of the Lords supper & the Lords Day, and that for two reasons; first because we have a manifest institution thereof, and Christs Precept for the observing of it. Not so of the Lords Day. Secondly, if there were a Precept for keeping the Lords Day, yet were it Ecclesiastical and so mutable. For men may choose days for the worship of God, as touching the particularity of this day or that. But the institution of the Sacraments is of Divine authority by the ⟨p. 135⟩consent of all. To this I reply that Doctor Rivetus corrupts Master Perkins his answer in the proposing of it;3 for he saith not the same is the reason of the Lords Supper, and of the day which we call the Lords Day; but supposeth, and that most modestly that either of them being called the Lords, they are called so in the same Notion. That like as the Lords Supper is so called because he instituted it; so the first day of the week is called the Lords Day, because he instituted the observation of it. And this Doctor Thysius colleague to Doctor Rivetus maintains as well as Master Perkins, and Doctor Andrewes Bishop of Winchester in his speech against Traske; saying that both these, to wit the first day of the week, and Christ last Supper are called the Lords, to show that Dominicum (the Lords) is alike to be taken in both. For what reason can be given why the day of Christs Resurrection, not according to the day of the year wherein he arose, but according to the day of the week wherein he arose, should be called the Lords Day, but to signify. First, that it was to succeed in the place of the Lords Day under the law, which was the Jewish Sabbath. 2.