A63997:250
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
THE DOCTRINE OF THE SABBATH DELIVERED in the Act at Oxenford, Anno… › Section 7
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.
The fourth and last particular is the mutability of the day §4which this Prefacer stands for, we on the contrary professing it to be unchangeable. Now the resolution of this followeth upon the resolution of the former; for this, only names are produced both by the Prefacer and Doctor Prideaux. Yet I have endeavoured to find out Chemnitius his discourse thereon, and enter upon a discussion thereof. Bucer I am sure, alleged by Rivet, is nothing for this purpose. Doctor Fulke directly opposeth it, Doctor Andrewes, Doctor Lake above mentioned, Doctor Brownde, Doctor Willet, Master Perkins. The Christian Church anciently being demanded whether they had kept the Lords Day, were wont to answer; I am a Christian, I cannot intermit it. Besides I have showed in reason the unreasonableness both of changing the day, and the intolerable scandal that would follow upon it, and the unreasonableness of not changing it, if it be not of divine institution; considering ⟨p. 156⟩how prone we are through the continual observation thereof to conceive that to be a necessary duty, and so to be plunged into superstition, ere we are aware, if it prove to be no necessary duty.
The fourth and last particular is the mutability of the day §4which this Prefacer stands for, we on the contrary professing it to be unchangeable. Now the resolution of this followeth upon the resolution of the former; for this, onely names are produced both by the Prefacer and Doctor Prideaux. Yet I have endeavored to finde out Chemnitius his discourse thereon, and enter upon a discussion thereof. Bucer I am sure, alleaged by Rivet, is nothing for this purpose. Doctor Fulke directly opposeth it, Doctor Andrewes, Doctor Lake above mentioned, Doctor Brownde, Doctor Willet, Master Perkins. The Christian Church anciently being demanded whether they had kept the Lords Day, were wont to answer; I am a Christian, I cannot intermit it. Besides I have shewed in reason the unreasonablenesse both of changing the day, and the intollerable scandall that would follow upon it, and the unreasonablenesse of not changing it, if it be not of divine institution; considering ⟨p. 156⟩how prone wee are through the continuall observation thereof to conceave that to be a necessary duty, and so to be plunged into superstition, ere we are aware, if it prove to be no necessary duty.