A64001:522
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.
35 You cannot find in all the 14. to the Romans that the Apostle is positive in the doctrine of days, he expresseth a mutual indulgence until men had attained [Greek or Hebrew] concerning the liberty from Moses Law. Neither doth he bear out the Gentiles against the Jews, but qualify rather the destempered zeal of the Gentiles that were too hot against the Jews; Sensus dictorum sumendus est ex causis dicendorum, It is plain that there was a question, whether the Christian gentile should be pressed to observe the ceremonies whereunto the christian Jews were pertinaciously addicted? but never was there (for ought I read) a question whether the Jews should keep the Lords day? for I think they never refused it. Had there been such a quarrel, I would enlarge the sense of that Chapter, as you do, to our question, but seeing there was not, I see not how it should be reasonably done.
35 You cannot finde in all the 14. to the Romans that the Apostle is positive in the doctrine of dayes, he expresseth a mutuall indulgence untill men had attained 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 concerning the liberty from Moses Law. Neither doth he beare out the Gentiles against the Jewes, but qualifie rather the destempered zeale of the Gentiles that were too hot against the Jewes; Sensus dictorum sumendus est ex causis dicendorum, It is plaine that there was a questiō, whether the Christian gentile should be pressed to observe the ceremonies whereunto the christian Jewes were pertinaciously addicted? but never was there (for ought I read) a question whether the Jewes should keepe the Lords day? for I think they never refused it. Had there been such a quarrell, I would enlarge the sense of that Chapter, as you doe, to our question, but seeing there was not, I see not how it should be reasonably done.
36 I say not that the Apostles imprinted any holiness upon the first day of the week; It was Christs resurrection that honoured that day, which (I say) the Apostles were to respect, not arbitrarily, but necessarily. You may perceive the reason in my Theses. You cannot observe from the beginning of the world any other inducement to the institution of feasts, but Gods work done on the day; If it were not a continued work, as the dwelling in Tabernacles.