A64001:142
Of the morality of the fourth commandment as still in force to bind Christians…Of the morality of the fourth commandement as still in force to binde Christians…
Of the morality of the fourth commandment as still in force to bind Christians delivered by way of answer to the translator of Doctor Prideaux his lecture, concerning the doctrine of the Sabbath ... / written by William Twice ...Of the morality of the fourth commandement as still in force to binde Christians delivered by way of answer to the translator of Doctor Prideaux his lecture, concerning the doctrine of the Sabbath ... / written by William Twisse ...
London: printed by E.G. for John Rothwell, 1641London: printed by E.G. for Iohn Rothwell, 1641
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.
2. Neither doth it follow that because it is not moral nor political, therefore it is ceremonial; for some will say that it is positive as touching the defining of some particular necessarily required to the performance of a moral duty. As for example, not to go further then the matter in hand for instance; it is generally confessed, to be a moral duty by natural instinct, that some time is to be set apart for Gods service; but of our selves we are to seek of the proportion of time; it is fit for none so much as for God himself our Creator, and consequently our great Lord and master to define what proportion of time shall be allowed for his service; now this they call positively moral, as belonging to the execution ⟨p. 77⟩of a moral duty. Yet indeed not so much a circumstance thereof in proper speech as the specification of the general concerning the circumstance of time.
2. Neither doth it follow that because it is not morall nor politicall, therefore it is ceremoniall; for some will say that it is positive as touching the defining of some particular necessarily required to the performance of a morall duty. As for example, not to go further then the matter in hand for instance; it is generally confessed, to be a morall duty by naturall instinct, that some time is to bee set apart for Gods service; but of our selves wee are to seeke of the proportion of time; it is fit for none so much as for God himselfe our Creator, and consequently our great Lord and master to define what proportion of time shall be allowed for his service; now this they call positively morall, as belonging to the execution ⟨p. 77⟩of a morall duty. Yet indeed not so much a circumstance thereof in proper speech as the specification of the generall concerning the circumstance of time.
13. Yet to draw nearer to the morality of it; what? shall nothing be moral that is not known to be so, by light of nature, for what I pray? is not our nature now corrupt? nay hath not Aristotle professed that matter of morality is not capable of demonstration, but only of [Greek or Hebrew] persuasion? Nay how is it known by the light of nature, that some time is to be set apart to the worship of God that made us; but upon presupposition that God is known to be our Creator? and is this known by the light of nature? How came Aristotle then the greatest Philosopher that ever was, and his whole school, how I say came they to be ignorant of it? but upon presupposition of the History of the Creation known unto us, Doctor Field spares not to profess as Master Broad reports him, that by light of nature it is known that one day in seven ought to be consecrated to Divine Service? Yet I am not forward to say so much, but rather with Chrysostom, that now from the Creation God hath manifested that one day in a week is to be apportioned for his service; and with Azorius that it is most agreeable to reason,