A64001:220
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.
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, faith 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. 2First, 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; for he saith not the same is the reason of the Lords Supper, and of the 3day 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.