A64001:236
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.
And no more doth D. Rivetus deliver in excepting against his annotations: for as he acknowledgeth M. Perkins scriptorem 1modestissimum, a most modest writer; so he carrieth himself most modestly towards him. But I hope without any breach of modesty, I may profess, that I find no accurateness in each of his allegations, save one, namely, that wherein ⟨p. 141⟩Christ professeth himself Lord of the Sabbath; and it is enough for the present, that God reserves to himself power of ordering times for his service; yet it cannot be denied, but God hath left power to his Church, upon good occasion, to set some time apart for exercise of piety. But whereas it is apparent, that God himself took upon him the ordering of the time for the Sabbath, and accordingly Christ calls himself The Lord of the Sabbath; as he constituted it, so none but he can abrogate it, and ordain another in the place of it. Now, whereas D. Rivetus saith, that he hath left this power unto his Church; it stands him upon to prove it. We find our Saviour supposeth us Christians to have a Sabbath after his resurrection, Matth. 24. 20. as well as the Jews had before: we find that in the Apostles days, the first day of the week was set apart for this; which could not be, but by the joint consent of the Apostles, we find that the day of the week (not the day of the year) wherein Christ rose, by Saint John himself called the Lords Day, an evident argument, that in his time it was so generally received. We find that never any work of God did give better cause to profess, that The day thereof was the day that the Lord had made, let us be glad and rejoice therein; then the day wherein Christ rose from the dead, and thereby was declared to be the Son of God, even that stone which the builders refused to be made the head of the corner. And how strange is it, that the Church for 1500. years space should no where offer to alter it; if in no other respect, yet in this, to manifest that the Church is endued with such liberty and power, and to prevent the superstitious observation of the day as a thing necessary, if it be not necessary. Lastly, if this liberty be still in the Church; in case they should exercise this liberty, what inconvenience would follow upon the exercising of a lawful liberty? But infinite inconvenience would follow hereupon: