A64001:344
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 of Protestant Divines, I have represented no less then eleven, maintaining the Apostolical and divine constitution of the Lords day, besides Gerardus the Lutheran, to affront Brentius; Nay, Doctor Prideaux himself Sect. 7. maintains that it is of Divine authority; and as I remember, in the vespers at the last act unalterable by the Church; That the Priesthood being changed, there is made also a change of the law we believe, because the Apostle saith it Heb. 7. 12. & it is well if the Schoolmen make the word of God their principles; but of what Law? of the moral law, or of the ten commandments; or any one of them? (yet we willingly confess a change of one particular in one of them) & not rather of the law of sacrifices; & such a change as to set an end to them. That hence the Schoolmen conclude that at this day, the moral law bindeth not, as it was published and proclaimed by Moses; but as at first it appertained no less to the Gentiles then to the Jews; this I say is a mystery: And to confess a truth, when I met with this, in a certain manuscript of one Brewers, it seemed to me a very wild discourse, from this place of the Apostle to infer so much; but now I meet with it in a lecture, of so judicious and learned Divine as Doctor Prideaux, I will suspend my judgement, and wait until I hear what those Schoolmen are, and where it is that they make such inferences; that being made acquainted with them, I may judge of them according to my capacity, as they deserve. Certainly Zanchy in the place quoted, makes no such Inference from that place, Heb. 7. 12. yet the Doctrine which he delivers is good and sound, though the instance he makes of the Sabbath, too weak to prove it, as appears to all that acknowledge the Commandment of sanctifying the Sabbath to be given to Adam, immediately after his creation; who deserve to be accounted more hot spurs then they, in whom The desire of prey doth over-run the sent? Now what one of our Divines can be alleged to derive the authority of the Lords day from the law of Moses? I am verily persuaded, not one: The sanctifying of the Lords Sabbath they derive from thence, and the sanctifying of one day in seven, but not the authority of the Lords day:
And of Protestant Divines, I have represented no lesse then eleven, maintaining the Apostolicall and divine constitution of the Lords day, besides Gerardus the Lutheran, to affront Brentius; Nay, Doctor Prideaux himselfe Sect. 7. maintaines that it is of Divine authority; and as I remember, in the vespers at the last act unalterable by the Church; That the Priesthood being changed, there is made also a change of the law we beleeve, because the Apostle saith it