A63997:346
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.
especially considering the last place, Revel. 1.10. where the first day of the week is called the Lords day, a notable evidence of the divine authority; the Scripture phrase no where calling any the Lords day, or the Lords Altars, or the Lords feasts, but such as are of the Lords institution; and in this particular, Bishop Andrewes compares the Lords day with the Lords Supper, professing the notion to be a like in both. And hereupon it is most ingenuously acknowledged, that The alteration of the name doth intimate, that the Sabbath was also altered, in relation to Gods worship, but the appointment of the tim, &c. wherein endeth this Section. And the next begins with this question, ⟨p. 234⟩what then? shall we affirm that the Lords day is founded on divine authority? and the answer is, For my part (without prejudice to any mans opinion) I assent unto it; how ever the arguments like me not, whereby it is supported; well therefore, let us lovingly and candidly, as it becomes the gates of the muses, confer about these arguments. First, this inference offends me; That in the cradle of the world, God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; therefore all men are bound to sanctify it by the Law of Nature: since I both doubt, whether the Patriarchs did observe it before Moses time, and have learnt also that the Law of nature is immutable; Doctor Andrewes in his pattern of Catechetical Doctrine writes saying, This is a principle, that the Decalogue is the Law of nature revived, and the law of nature is the Image of God. But let us consider the argument: It is one thing to except against the antecedent, another to except against the inference made hence: As touching the Antecedent, it is one thing, what God hath ordained, and may be another thing, what the Patriarchs observed; we say God ordained it in as much as he commanded it in these words, Therefore God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, that is, commanded man to sanctify it as hath been proved: and is also confessed; only to help themselves, as it were at a dead lift; they say, those words in Genesis, are uttered by way of anticipation; as much as to say; because God rested on that day, therefore God commanded man to rest on the same day, and sanctify it, but when? 2500. years after;