A64001:330
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 if it be reasonable that one day in seven should be allowed for the ease, and recreation of servants; what day shall be their Sabbath, if not the day of rest? and if this be most reasonable, I hope in the second place it will be judged most unreasonable that there should be one Sabbath for the Master, and another for the servants: undoubtedly, now God hath gone before us in allotting this proportion of time for his service; we may be bold to say with Azorius (and that incorrespondency to Tostatus his discourse) that rationi maximè consentaneum est after six work days to consecrate one unto divine service. And seeing God hath required such a proportion of time for his service under the Law: by the very light of nature it appears to be most unreasonable we should allow him a worse proportion under the Gospel, and Calvin professeth that Nobis cum veteri populo quoad hanc partem communis est Sabbati necessitas. We have as much need of a Sabbath 1as ever the Jews had. As touching the three particulars wherein Tostatus is vouched to affirm the fourth Commandment to be an unstable, and alterable ceremony. First I have not hitherto found, that Tostatus confoundeth the proportion of one day in seven, with the particular day under this proportion; as if these were equally ceremonial. The rest on the seventh day in the judgement of the ancients prefigured the rest of Christ (that day) in his grave, and in that respect was accounted by them ceremonial. But as for the proportion of one day in seven, never yet did I meet with any who set his wits on work to devise any thing in Christ to be prefigured thereby, that so it also might be accounted ceremonial. Yet I nothing doubt but this proportion is alterable by that power whereby it was prescribed, but not by any inferior power; and so it is accounted by Jacobus de Valentia, stabile & aeternum, stable and everlasting; and most unreasonable that we should not be bound to allow as good a proportion of service unto God under the Gospel, as the Jews were bound to allow him under the Law.
For if it be reasonable that one day in seven should be allowed for the ease, and recreation of servants; what day shall be their Sabbath, if not the day of rest? and if this be most reasonable, I hope in the second place it will be judged most unreasonable that there should be one Sabbath for the Master, and another for the servants: undoubtedly, now God hath gone before us in allotting this proportion of time for his service; wee may be bold to say with Azorius (and that incorrespondency to Tostatus his discourse) that rationi maximè consentaneum est after six worke dayes to consecrate one unto divine service. And seeing God hath required such a proportion of time for his service under the Law: by the very light of nature it appeares to be most unreasonable wee should allow him a worse proportion under the Gospell, and Calvin professeth that Nobis cum veteri populo quoad hanc partem communis est Sabbati necessitas. We have as much neede of a Sabbath