A64001:240
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.
For consider whether he had any hope to set so much as a face and outward show of probability upon his discourse, unless first he had manifestly corrupted the adversaries tenet, as appears by his proposing it, p. 119. Col. 1. By these (saith he) and other arguments drawn from Christian liberty, it is sufficiently deduced that they who maintain the Sabbath day not so much to be taken away as to be translated unto the Lords Day, and so changed, and do indeed think it more holy (then another day) and that not only in regard of ordination, and use, but in respect of signification and effect do cross some without Christian liberty, which is most certain of the Papists.
For consider whether hee had any hope to set so much as a face and outward shew of probability upon his discourse, unlesse first he had manifestly corrupted the adversaries tenet, as appeares by his proposing it, p. 119. Col. 1. By these (saith he) and other arguments drawn from Christian liberty, it is sufficiently deduced that they who maintaine the Sabbath day not so much to be taken away as to be translated unto the Lords Day, and so changed, and doe indeed thinke it more holy (then another day) and that not onely in regard of ordination, and use, but in respect of signification and effect doe crosse some without Christian liberty, which is most certaine of the Papists.
And indeed Walaeus makes it appear that Calvin writes herein against the superstitious Papists. And did Rivetus oppose them only it were well; but it is apparent that he disputes not so much against Papists in this argument as against Protestants, even such as himself. But can he show of any of them, that they account the Lords Day more holy then any other in respect of any mysterious signification (for so Calvin speaks in this place) of effect? undoubtedly he cannot. We observe a day in the week only for order and policy sake Ecclesiastical: mysterious significations in days were peculiar only to the Jews. Only we think it fit, that to prevent dissension and confusion, God should mark out that day unto us to be observed, and not leave it unto us, and so he hath; the Scripture calling the first day of the week the Lords Day; and that upon