A64001:177
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
The Preface of the Translator to the Christian Reader. › Section 5 › Exam.
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.
he not only professeth, that the Sabbath had reference to the old Creation, but in Christ we are a new Creature, a new Creation, and so to have a new Sabbath; and that this new Sabbath is the Lords Day declared unto us by the resurrection of Christ, for which he allegeth Austin Ep. 119. ad Januarium. But also for the confirmation of it saith it is deduced plainly by practise; adding that these two only the day (of the week whereon Christ rose) and the Supper, are called the Lords, to show that the word Dominicum is taken alike in both. Nay he goes farther, as namely to allege not only practise but precept also for it; from the first of the Epistle to the Corin. ⟨p. 104⟩cap. 16. 2. For albeit the Apostle there doth expressly constitute only an order for collections for the poor on the day of their meeting, yet as Piscator observes, it cannot be denied but that undoubtedly as touching the time of their meeting they were therein ordered also by S. Paul, as they were about the manner of celebrating the Lords Supper. And accordingly, Paraeus in the very passage alleged by Gomarus, doth take that place of 1 Cor. 16. 2. to notify, that the very time of their meeting there specified, was by the ordinance of S. Paul.
hee not onely professeth, that the Sabbath had reference to the old Creation, but in Christ we are a new Creature, a new Creation, and so to have a new Sabbath; and that this new Sabbath is the Lords Day declared unto us by the resurrection of Christ, for which he alleageth Austin Ep. 119. ad Ianuarium. But also for the confirmation of it saith it is deduced plainly by practise; adding that these two onely the day (of the weeke whereon Christ rose) and the Supper, are called the Lords, to shew that the word Dominicum is taken alike in both. Nay hee goes farther, as namely to alleage not onely practise but precept also for it; from the first of the Epistle to the Corin. ⟨p. 104⟩cap. 16. 2. For albeit the Apostle there doth expressely constitute onely an order for collections for the poore on the day of their meeting, yet as Piscator observes, it cannot bee denied but that undoubtedly as touching the time of their meeting they were therein ordered also by S. Paul, as they were about the manner of celebrating the Lords Supper. And accordingly, Paraeus in the very passage alleaged by Gomarus, doth take that place of