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…

And manifest reason, as appears by division of time into weeks, even from the creation, and so continuing to the time of the Law delivered on the mount Sinai, as appears by the story of falling of Manna, and the Jews gathering of it on six days; none falling now, being gathered on the seventh, as the day on the week whereon God rested after he had made the world in six. What danger in maintaining, that God required from the beginning, and afterwards specified so much in the Law, that one day in seven is to be consecrated unto Gods service; and hence to infer, that if God required so much of the Jews under the Law, it were most unreasonable and unconscionable we should not afford unto him and his service as good a proportion of time under the Gospel? Thirdly, what danger is there in affirming, that the Lords Day is of Divine institution? Is it not Scripture that calls it the Lords Day? And what day was called the Lords Day before, but the day of the Jews Sabbath? And hath not our Saviour manifestly given us to understand, that even Christians were to have their Sabbath, as the Jews had theirs, as Bishop Andrewes accommodates the place? Matth. 24. 20. And was the resurrection of Christ any thing inferior to the creation, to give a day unto us Christians; like as Gods rest from creation, commended that day to the Jews: Especially considering, that a new creation requires a new Sabbath; as Athanasius delivered it of old; And D. Andrewes of late years treading in the steps of that ancient Father, or rather of all the ancient Fathers: And what danger in maintaining that the Lords Day is entire, and whole to be consecrated to Divine service; did Austin speak ⟨p. 172⟩dangerously, when he professeth, that thereon we must tantum Deo vacare, tantū cultibus divinis vacare; would this Prefacer be content to be found dancing about a Maypole, or in a Morris-dance that day that Christ should come in flaming fire, to render vengeance to all them that know not God, nor obey the Gospel of Christ Jesus? Nay, would he not fear to rue the danger of his doctrine, when it will be too late to correct it, and all the profaneness that he hath promoted by this preface of his should rise up in judgement against him; yet now he thinks he could not go about a better work than by this preface & translation to harden them in their profane and impure courses;

And manifest reason, as appeares by division of time into weekes, even from the creation, and so continuing to the time of the Law delivered on the mount Sinai, as appeares by the story of falling of Manna, and the Jewes gathering of it on sixe dayes; none fallingnow, being gathered on the seventh, as the day on the week whereon God rested after he had made the world in six. What danger in maintaining, that God required from the beginning, and afterwards specified so much in the Law, that one day in seven is to be consecrated unto Gods service; and hence to inferre, that if God required so much of the Jews under the Law, it were most unreasonable and unconscionable we should not afford unto him and his service as good a proportion of time under the Gospel? Thirdly, what danger is there in affirming, that the Lords Day is of Divine institution? Is it not Scripture that calls it the Lords Day? And what day was called the Lords Day before, but the day of the Jewes Sabbath? And hath not our Saviour manifestly given us to understand, that even Christians were to have their Sabbath, as the Jewes had theirs, as Bishop Andrewes accommodates the place?