A64001:350
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 sufficient I trow it is to prove that it was instituted, and that in the best manner, namely by establishing it de facto in practise amongst the Churches; I say, this is sufficiently proved by the observation of it; which undoubtedly, neither was nor could be by chance. A Sow musling in the earth, may make something like the letter A. but not Ennius his Andromacha saith Cicero. In like sort the concurrence of the Churches, in the observation hereof from the Apostles, and continuance therein unto this day, could not be by chance, but by order, and that from the Apostles. When ⟨p. 229⟩you ask, Did not the Apostles keep the Jewish Sabbath? I answer, I do not find they did, yet I find revelations were made unto them of what was to be done by degrees. Peter was challenged Acts 11. by the rest of the Apostles, for preaching the Gospel unto the Gentiles. They took indeed advantage of the Jews Sabbath, to preach the Gospel unto them congregated together Act. 13. so did they to the same end take the opportunity of the feast of Pentecost, Acts 18. 21. I grant the Sabbath day was observed together with the Lords day by some Christians; Baronius imputes it to the Orientals, and gives the reason why formerly represented. If any man infer herehence that the celebration of the Lords day, is grounded upon the constitution of the Church only, let him make it good; for there is no reason that words should carry it, much less the voice of one Papist who here is quoted. I am sure Dominicus Bannes and Sixtus Senensis, are of another opinion, formerly produced; and hereafter follow many Canonists that maintain the contrary, by the relation of Azorius, and one of them, Sylvester by name, professeth that it is Communis opinio, that it is of Divine authority. If Brentius thinks otherwise, yet Gerardus refuseth to tread in his steps, though both are Lutherans. And if the Remonstrants concur with Brentius, it is nothing strange, they are so near a kin to the Socinians and Anabaptists, who renounce altogether the observation of the Lords day. I have formerly reckoned up and produced no less then eleven of our Protestant Divines maintaining the ordinance thereof to be Divine and Apostolical. Besides the Ancients who are many, and they express for the same, and not one that I know avouched to the contrary.