I Having met with a Book of Doctor Owen's, a man of note for Piety and Learning: I gladly set time apart to read, and consider it, concluding I should find some wor­thy service done by him, that would tend to the good of the present, and succeeding generations: although I did expect a difference might remain between him and me, about the precise Day of Rest; but if I had found no other difference be­tween me and him, nor between the truth and him, then I might in reason expect. I was resolved to signifie to him in a Letter, what in his Book did dis-satisfie me, and see his answer, (if it might have been obtained) before I did openly appear against him. Not greatly fearing, that he would have gone farther out of the way in this matter, than many Worthies that have wrote about this Subject; as Mr. Dod, Dr. Bayly, Mr. Chaudry, Mr. Shepheard, and several others, who, from a conceit that the Day of Sabbath was changed to the first day of the week, by Christ; argued it at the best rate they could, but still with this circumspect care, in all they said, to keep the Crown as honourably as they could, upon the head of the fourth Commandment. Now my expectation was, that Dr. Owen, who I conceive hath the advantage of them, would not have turned more crookedly out of the way than they did: but when I came to read his Book, I saw it was no Letter matter, but it was a piece very dishonourable to the Christian Re­ligion: but my intention is not to meddle with all I dislike, but to speak to some of the most dangerous mistakes, that are most likely to snare the souls of men; but withall, I freely confess, there be many excellent passages of Truth asserted by him, if he had not plucked down with one hand, as fast as he built with the other. The best of his sayings I shall not conceal.

And first, to what I find in his Epistle, take, and it is worthy. The publick profession of Religion, and the rule it bears in the minds and lives of men, cannot be maintained without a due observance of a stated day of Sacred Rest, which had its beginning by Gods own appointment. Now this is a true saying, and the sense of the most Judicious and Godly Ministers among us this day, who will be as ready to say as he, no Sabbath, no Religion; how contrary so­ever [Page 2] both they, and the Congregations with them, walk to this Rule. Like passages we find in the third page, [where he, com­plaining of mens inventions, universally perverting the state of all things made of God, giving instance in that Sacred day, when all things were made very good.] Now nothing can be more evident than this, that in this place he means the seventh day Sabbath, ex­prest Gen. 2. if he intended his meaning should be known by his words. But again, after some worthy acknowledgments [of the Advantages, that lay in that day, and duty of keeping it, then he sayes, it might be so still to the sons of men, but that they are continually finding out new inventions] now would any man think that it were possible, after such a testimony borne by him­self for that day; and telling us, that it might be as good for us now as it was then, if it were not for our own inventions, that he himself should prove such a man of invention, as presently to face about, and write a Book of inventions, against this very day and duty, he hath borne so high a Testimony for; as in the fourteenth page of his Book, he falleth to Nick-name this very day, calling it the [Judaical Sabbath] with reproaching them as [unwary and unadvised persons that keep it] but whether against his Con­science, I dare not say, but against his principles, I dare say, he doth it; see his thirty seventh page, where he saith expresly, [the name given in Scripture to a day, it must be called by, and not otherwise] now this is true; for if we call any thing by a wrong name, we deceive the understandings of all we speak to, and also transgress the Scripture Rule, 2 Tim. 1.13. Hold fast the form of sound words. Therefore, how he hath abused Gods Word, and his Reader, both here, and in his whole fourth exercitation, where he brands the Sabbath with that name of Judaical; both the Reader and himself may judge; unless he can find the Spirit of God naming the seventh day Sabbath Judaical, any where in Scri­pture. But I hope the Doctor, in the writing of his next Book, will remember to keep a little closer, to that good Doctrine exprest in his twentieth page namely [it is onely walking according to Rule that will please God] but by what Rule the Doctors Pen writeth, is meet for his own second thoughts, for so irreconcile­able a man with himself, I think is hard to be found on earth; for in his twenty third page, there he first proveth, from Gen. 2. and Exod. 20. that the Sabbath is called the Seventh day, and within a few lines after, he saith, it is not absolutely so called any [Page 3] where, but let me tell him, he will take upon him a great work, when he taketh in hand the proof of this; for, where-ever it is made mention of, with respect to any appellations of any day in the week, the Seventh is named, and no other: but in the next page he tells us, [the Apostle cast out of use this appel­lation of the seventh day, now under the New Testament, and hath antiquated it] but what Apostle he meaneth, and where we shall find any proof for any of this, the D [...]ctor tells us not. But another note I cannot but mind the Reader of, in his second Exercitation, where, after the writing of at least fifty pages, proving the Sabbaths beginning in Pa­radise, and being naturally moral, the law of our Creation, and the like; he sayes, it was [absolutely commensurate to the Church-state of the Jews, beginning and ending with it] To this, I say, for the Sabbaths being commensurate to the Jewish Church-state, I see no reason to gainsay him; for my own Judgement is satisfied, that the Sabbath is commensu­rate to every state of the Church, and to every age of the world; there is no reason to the contrary; wherefore should it not as well as its fellows? first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth. But how it comes to begin and end with the Church of the Jews, had need to be well proved first; and secondly, well reconciled to what the Doctor hath said of it in his Book, which two works will cost him two great Books more, before it be effected: but indeed I cannot but wonder, that he should think his bare word proof enough for such things as few men in the Land believe to be true, besides himself. But now, on the contrary, the Doctor, like a man led by two contrary spirits, falls a contradict­ing this by fresh arguments, to prove the seventh day Sabbath naturally moral, and universal; as in the 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, and 128, pages, in all which places, he makes it his bu­siness to prove it so, with more to the same purpose, in the 149, 165, 178, 179, and 180 pages, unto which I referr the Reader, as being too numerous to be here inserted. But I shall name a passage or two, and so proceed; for he argues, [that the Cause he pleads, the command in the Decalogue will bear, and that the Sabbath hath an original right by birth, amongst the society of the Decalogue, the reason is rendred, because the seventh day, or a seventh day, in a septenary revolution, is expresly command­ed] but being conscious to himself that this assertion tends [Page 4] to confirm those rationall men, that believe and say, that nothing more nor less is commanded in the fourth Command, but the seaventh day Sabbath; he presently falls to contradict both him­self and the truth, saying, [that they speak not only uncertainly but certainly false, who say the fourth command injoynes the keeping of the seventh day, precisely, and that the words of the Apostle seems to lye expresly against it] but the best out is, he neither names the Apostle, nor the place; but you mey well know the reason is, because they are not to be found in Scripture. But notwithstanding these and such like contradictions, yet he goes on to prove the morality and equlaity of the fourth command with the Rest, and amongst many other lively passages, this is one: [That it hath an equall share with the rest of the nine in all the priviledges of the whole page 186. and this he backeth with pregnant arguments, taking from [Gods declaring it with his own voice, and writing twice with his own finger in Tables of Stone, and saith, it is the Law, God promiseth to write in the hearts of his elect, and observes that the Church of England prayes as well for the writing of the law, of the Sabbath in their hearts, as any other of the nine.] And I shall second the Doctor with this observation, that indeed it appears to me beyond a doub [...], that this Law is written fair enough to be read in the hearts of men, and such men who never kept Sabbath, nor never intend to do, should it notwithstanding pray so seriously at the reading of that Law, The Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this Law.

Another substantial argument he draws from its being lodged in the ark with the other nine, where none of the other Laws were put; and indeed the consideration of it alone is enough to in­gage any considering person to make great conscience of keep­ing every tittle of that Law; for who that considers Christ was typified thereby, to remove the curse of the Law, and to write it in the hearts of his elect, as the D [...]ctor saith, with what is fur­ther urged by him from page 181 to 193, can well harden his heart so high against God, as to find or seek out inventions to break the Sabbath, or any other of these ten words.

Next, the Doctor proves the duration and morality of the Sabbath, and that undeniably: unless you will deny the Sun shines when the shadow shows the time of day on the Dyal. from Mat. 24.20. Mat. 5.17, 18, 19. James 2.10, 11. pre­sently [Page 5] endeavouring to pull down all he had built in saying [that what he had taught reached not to the seventh day precisely, page 196] but in the 103 page I find an argument levied against the whole Doctrine, and scope of his Book, which cuts the sinews and strength of all his design in two. The sum of all which is this, that there is but one Sabbath only spoken of in the Old Testament; for the Doctors business is to find the first days Sab­bath, and the seventh days sabbath, both in the fourth Command­ment, or else the Book is without design, or the design of it un­knowable, but let us see the Doctors answer.

And first he answers by way of Concession [That never any sober person fancied two sabbaths in the Old Testament] to which I say, what hath the Dr. been doing all this while then; for he hath written two hundred pages to prove the first day sabbath from the fourth Commandment, the 2 Gen. and Esaiah 58. he need not to have been at the trouble to write two pages to prove the seventh day sabbath from thence; for that was never any mans doubt.

Secondly the Dr. [puts prudent men to distinguish between the sab­bath exprest in the Law of our cre­ation,But will not the Reader think it strange to find him after this indeavouring to prove 3. Sabbaths from thence, one Moral, and another Judai­cal, and a third a first day Sabbath of a Gospel Nature. and the same seventh day sabbath fitted to the Jewish Church State, and the Covenant they were under] But I dare be bold to say that he that can find two such sea­venth days sabbaths, distinguished in the fourth Commandement, in any Bible that this age affords, is a man of skill, but what if he could find his impossible distin­ction, he is still but where he was, and neither the Sabbath in the fourth Commandment, nor that fitted to the Jewish Covenant, as he calls it, can be first days Sabbath; he is still as short of that as he was before he distinguished, but he goes on with the like words, till he concludes his answer with this confusion. [Nor is here the least appearance of two sabbaths, but one only is com­manded unto all, and determined unto a certain day, for the use of some for a season] what he means by no appearance of two Sabbaths, is worthy our knowledge; for if he speaks of the the Scriptures, then it is true there is no appearance of any more then one Sabbath only; but if he speaks of his own book and [Page 6] words, nothing can be spoken more false, for he hath asserted two in this very same 205 page [The one day belonging to the Covenant of works, and the other to the Covenant of grace by Jesus Christ, and this of the precise seventh day to the Cove­nant of works] and if there be the precise seventh day, and the precise first day, and these belong to two so distinct Covenants, how can he say there is no appearance of any more then one? and yet he adds in the second line [But one only is commanded unto all] these thing; hang together like Pibble Stones in a Hal­ter; for if one Sabbath be commanded unto all, of what use is the Doctors book in the world, unless to work strife; but he proceeds [and determined unto a certain day for the use of some for a season] this hath a strange look, what commanded unto all, and yet but for the use of some; but I shall leave this for the Doctor to interpret.

Next he tells us [that one day in seven olny, and not the se­ven [...]h precisely, is directly and immediately enjoyned in the De­calogue] but who knows not how contrary this assertion is, God himself directly in the Letter of the Text, calls the seventh day the Sabbath day, giving both the names to one, and the self same day, as all-men know that ever read the C [...]mmandments. This he goes over again with, in the next page, affirming, [The Reasons in the command do no more respect the seventh day, then any other in seven] which how contrary it is to the express Letter of the fourth Commandment, is manifest, but with this notable contradiction [six days are granted to labour, that is, in number, and not more in a septenary revolution.] Now this is true beyond all reasonable mens doubts, and therefore it is impos­sible for the first day to be a Sabbath; for though it be often said that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh day to the first; Yet it is altogether impossible to prove it, either by Scrip­ture or antiquity, and flat against the Doctors own words; for if six days in number be granted to work in between Sabbath and Sabbath, as it certainly is in the great Charter of the fourth Command, Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work. Then it is impossible that the first day next insuing the Sabbath, can be made a Sabbath without the manifest breach of that great grant in that divine Charter confirmed by Jesus the Mediator, to one jot or tittle (which jot is the smallest Letter in the Hebrew Alpha­bet) now if Christ have established that Law in all its commands [Page 7] and grants, Mat. 5.18. then it is impossible for more then se­ven days, to be between Sabbath and Sabbath, the next week af­ter the Resurrection without as manifest an intrenchment upon that sacred command where all flesh is thus limited, but the se­venth day the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, thou shalt not do any work; now for a man to say so frequently [the sabbath hath a septenary return, and that its one in seven absolutely, or one in the revolution of seven, and that every week or seven days had a sabbath in it] and that so often repeated, and yet at other turns speak that which is so absolutely inconsistent herewith, manifest­ly discovering how he was bewildered and hard put to it be­tween the two parties he fights against; to the [...]ne he saith [it began in Paradise and all the Patriarch kept it, and the De­calogue will bear the cause he pleads, and the accepted time of Gods Worship is declared and determined in the fourth Com­mandment] with many like expressions; but when he speaks to the other party that practice what he teacheth them, then he tells us [we are unwary and unadvised persons for keeping it, putting a nick name upon it Judaical] and would make us believe it be­gan and ended with the Church State of the Jews and such like contradictions, not only to the express testimony of Gods word, but to his own [...]ffirmations plain'd and express in a multitude of places, as in th [...] 209 page, where he hath to doe with those that would have [...] [...]bbath Typical, there he riseth up like a Gyant, and tells ther [...] [...] was given before the first promise of Christ, and that in th [...] state of [...]nnocency, and under the Cove­nant of works in perfect force, wherein there was no respect to the Mediation of Iesus Christ] now here the Dr. may be belie­ved; but then it is not possible to believe him, when he saith, [it began and ended with the Iewish Church State] nor in those ma­ny contradictions to it all along in his Book as in this very page he undermineth this Building to set up that new device of the first day Sabbath, he fetcheth his compass (as all must do) that have no direct proof, brings in this story, [Of Christ, laying the Foundations of the new Heavens and the new Earth in his Resur­rection.]

This speech, with more of like sort are not to be owned, and enough to make the Jews abhorr the Christian Religion, when so great a Christian Doctor shall speak such things as they and all men know to be so false; such things are lookt for indeed, 2 Pet. 3. [Page 8] 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. but that need not be, if Christ fell upon this work so long ago.

Secondly, I answer, if the first day were Sabbath, now by in­stitution, as he saith it is, page 25, or if he could prove it by ex­press testimonies of Scripture, as he promised to doe, Page 17. I cannot believe he would have brought such pittiful proof as this is, that needs proving every word of it, but here is no Text urged for any of these assertions; but if any could have been found, there was great need of them.

But thirdly, suppose that at the Resurrection there had been the foundation of the Heavens and the new Earth laid, what ground had this been to make the day a Sabbath? without an in­stitution it would have been but will worship.

But Fourthly, if it were true as it is not, what agreement is there in his parallel? what reason is there that his new Sabbath must begin the first day? the foundations of the new Heavens and new Earth is laid, whereas God did not so, he finished his work before he sanctified the Sabbath, but the Doctor is very for­ward in the advance of his new Sabbath, not staying till the work is finished; more forward then he is like to have any thanks for his labour at the day of Judgment, in the 212 and 213 pages he comes to show [the sad inconveniencies and confusion that comes by taking out of Gods hand the division between the time that is allowed us for our own occasions, and what is to be spent in his service, and particularly for casting off his example in working six days, and resting the seventh] what for substance can a Sabbath keeper say more, who would not take the D ctor to be one if he were congruous to himself. See also the fulness of his Testimony, pag. 19. 20. where he confesseth [the day of rest hath uncontroulable testimony in Scripture, in the light of na­ture, and practice of the Church, from the beginning of the world, not confining himself to Gospel days] (as his own Phrase is) now if the Doctor mean as he saith, the seventh day is the Sabbath by his own words, and as full a Testimony as ever came or can come from the Pen of any Scri [...]e; for what can be more evident then this, that Gods example leads us to the seventh day, the un­controuble Testimony of Scripture doth the like, and that this must needs be his meaning, sometimes is evident, see pag. 23. where he hath these words [This sacred day is called the se­venth day, Gen. 2. Exod. 20.] sure he cannot possibly intend a­ny [Page 9] other day, by this proof, nor will the light of nature ever guide us to the keeping of the first day, for that is set up upon the account of the Covenant of grace, if the Doctors Doctrine be true; see his 205 page, where he argues the Case thus, [That every Covenant of God with man must have one of the seven days of the week for a Sabbath, whether that of works, or that of grace by Jesus Christ] now that which stands by Grace, the light of nature will never take notice of, and the seventh day precisely he saith, belongs to the Covenant of works; now this precise seventh day for a weakly sabbath, is the known day by the Churches practice from the beginning of the world, to this very last age, as may appear by Dr. Heylin [...] History of the sab­bath; where he affirmeth that the invention of keeping the first day by vertue of the fourth Command, was not till the year, 1595 by Doctor Bound, which is but seventy six years ago. Something of what I have gathered up from the second book of his history, I shall here insert, and I find his Book full of pregnant proof from end to end, that none of the professed Christian Churches in the world, East nor West, did never own nor keep the first day of the week as a sabbath; nor did any of them judge the sabbath was transmitted from the seventh to the first day by any Divine Insti­tution; nor was it ever by any accounted more then then other holy days were, of Easter, Whitsontide, Christmas, Saints days, and the Wakes kept for the Dedication of Churches; nor were any of them set apart but by the Church; with an opinion of their being holy, by any commandment of God, or Christ, or any Apostle, but of the Church only; and proves that they were never kept, nor intended to be kept as a sabbath, but set a­part, partly for Worship, and partly for Recreation, and that in a case of great business (as Seed time and Harvest it was lawfull to labour) and that neither work nor recreation was counted a transgression, if persons did not neglect the publick worship, but came to Church. This is the scope and businesse of his Book.

And further he affirms, that the first broachers of this inven­tion of the first day being kept by vertue of the fourth Com­mandment, was not till the year, 1595 by Doctor Bound, whom he prints for a blemish and scandall to the Christian profession, for his affirming that the fourth command binds us to keep the Lords day, as he calls it, as it bound the Iews to keep the sabbath, [Page 10] and for saying it is naturally moral and perpetual, see his 8 chapt. pag. 250. and yet setteth the honour of a sabbath on the head of a sunday, as he often calls it. Now I shall name a few of m [...]ny of the testimonies mentioned in his book, as in his third pag. he ingeniously and truly acknowledgeth, that if the fourth Com­mand were Christs, be naturally moral, it is immutable, no jot or syllable shall decay till Heaven and Earth pass away. And fur­ther, that law must stand till the frame of nature be dissolved, and c tes Luke 16.17. to prove it; but he takes it for granted, that the fourth Command is Ceremonial and abolished, as the onely reason wherefore the seventh day is not to be kept now, and in the seventh page he affirms, that neither Christ nor his Disciples ordained any other sabbath then the seventh day, as if they in­tended to shift the day, and transfer the honour to some other time, though their Doctrine and Practice is directly contrary to so new a fancy; but saith he it is true, that in some tract of time the Church in honour of his Resurrection set that day apart, and going on with the same discourse, he tells us, it was only done on the authority of the Church, and not by any precept of our Lord and Saviour, or any one of his Apostles, nor any precept extent at all in holy scripture for it, and brings in Athanasius, say­ing, it was taken up by a voluntary usage in the Church, pag. 8. and not him only, but many fathers by name, both in the 7 and 8 pages, and in the ninth page he urgeth in these words the whole cloud of witnesses, all the Catholick Fathers, and in the 11 pag. he twice expresseth it, that in rract of time the Church did solem­nize it as a Festival day and no otherwise, giving substantial rea­sons from the scriptures to prove that neither Christ nor his A­postles had any hand in it; and goes on in several pages to re­move such objections as might carry any show of wait in the 22 page, and 4 or 5 pages following he argues the great mistake of that which is urged for the first day from Acts 20.7. and 1 Cor. 16.1. denying that in the 20 of the Acts, there was more then common eating, and affirming that the time was not the first day in neither place, but some sabbath day, and brings several wit­nesses, both Fathers and Protestant writers upon the place, ren­dring it sabbath, as Chrysostom, Lyra, Erasmus, Calvin, Pellican, Gualter, all noted men saith he, who both in their translations and exposition, call it sabbath day, page 23. and after in the 27 page cites further witnesses, Victorinus, Strigelius, Hunnius, and [Page 11] Aretius, now in the 31 32 pages he gives us this account, that in the first choice of the Sunday for the honour of the Resurre­ction, the Friday was chose for honour of his Passion, the Wed­nesday for that on it he was betrayed, the Saturday or antient sabbath, being the mean while retained in the Eastern Churches, and further tells us, it was the close of that first age before the Sunday had the honour to be called the Lords day, and closes his second chap, declaring, that it is far less dagger to call the first day sunday, then to call it sabbath, it being contrary to all antiquity and scripture; and in the 94 page he tells us, that for 300 yea [...]s there was no Law to bind them to keep it, nor any rest from labour or worldly business required upon it, and that it met with such opposition, that it was more then a thousand years after Christs Ascention, before it could attain the State it stan­deth in.

In the next place, he saith, they that set it up, may take it lower or quite away, or settle the honour it hath on another day; and saith it is the doctrine of Schoolmen and divers Protestant writers of great name and credit in the World, as that which no man will presume to say concerning the sabbath, who in the 140 pag [...], he saith, it was near 900 years from our Saviours birth, if not quite so much before husbandry was restrained in the East on this day; and it is observable how much adoe there was in all ages from the first making of the Law in Constantines time for a 1000 years together to force the people to keep it, no not so far as to forbear Plowing and Marketting, and all manner of business whatsoever, although the Councells made Canons, and the Kings and Emperours made Laws against it amongst a multi­tude of Orders, observe one in the year 1444. what time the Arch Bishop Stafford made a Decree, that Fairs and Markets should no more be kept in Churches and Church-yards, nor on the Lords day, or other holy days, except in harvest; this was in Henry the VI. time, pag. 229. And in the 180 and 181 pages, he brings the testimony of more then I can stand to name of mo­dern Divines, asserting it to be a Churh appointment, and no more voluntarily taken up, (and tells us of a consultation once to change it unto Thursday) among which he names Ʋrsin, Bren­tius, Calvin, Dr. Prediux, Chemnitius, Zuinglius, Bucer, Bil­linger, eighteen by name, saith he, and all the Lutherans in General, and by what appears in the latter part of the 6th chap. [Page 12] and several places, the Eastern Churches keep the seventh day all along from the Primitive times to this time; but I am weary of citing testimonies, for if I should gather up all I might, my an­swer would weary my Reader, he that hath a mind to know more, let him look into the book it self, where he shall find te­stimony full and clear for this matter.

Now let every person of Ingenuity and Integrity, weigh the matter, for the Doctor hath not spoken these things at Rovers, but names the Councels, the Antient Fathers, the Princes, and the years of these assertions and transactions from the Primitive times, to the year 1636. so I shall leave Dr. Heylins Testimony to be considered, and return again to Dr. Owin

Come we now to his 4th. exercitation, in which he indeavours to make us believe the Jews had the seventh day sabbath injoy­ned unto them upon differing grounds upon the first institution of it, and [now fitted to the Church State, and suited to the Shaddary Law, and made liable to be abolished with it] and abuseth the Apostle, Col. 2.16. to serve this interest, page 247. for evident it is, the Apostle names those Sabbaths that are shadow; of the bo­dy of Christ, and the Dr. himself hath discharged the seventh day sabbath from being of that number in proving it the Law of our Creation, and naturally Moral, indispensable, and perpetual, and universal, 124, 152 pages, and that this is the 7th. day that must be meant; see the Drs. own Testimony pag. 3. where he complains [of mens perverting the State of all things made of God] and in­stances in that sacred day of rest, which God made for the ad­vantage of the Sons of men, and says [it might be so still, if men were not finding out new inventions) and in the 25 page he saith (it is both Gods rest and ours, and that from his institution, he calls it my Sabbath, and presseth Gen. 2. and the Decalogue to prove it, and yet more plain in page 157. he saith, God ha­ving finished his work in 6 days, and resting on the 7th. given man thereby, and therein, the Rule and Law of his Obedience and Rewards for him to assign any other measure or portion of time for his rest unto God in his solemn worship, is to decline the authority of God for the sake of his own inventions) and in pag 164 he saith (the Creation of the World in 6 days, with the rest of God on the 7th. and that declared, gives unto all men an everlasting Law) now is it not strange that this same man should follow his own inventions till he quite faceth about, and faith (the [Page 13] sabbath was Judaical, and is absolutely abolished and taken a­way, page 250] but let us see the ground and reason of the Doctors disagreement with himself, and although his inventions be too many, and too troublesome for me to trace, yet I shall take notice of some of them; the first I shall note is this, that he is conceited that there is two seventh days sabbaths enjoyned in the fourth Commandment, and the one Moral, the other Ceremo­nial; the one a seventh day sabbath, the other the seventh day pre­cisely; the one instituted in Paradise, the other at Sinai; this is so notorious, as all men know that are consistent with them­selves and truth, that it needs no argument to confute it; for neither in the fourth Command, nor in the whole book of God, is there the least mention of any such thing as a seventh day sab­bath, beside the precise seventh day, no such thing will the Dr. find in my Bible, I am certain, whatever he can doe in his own. Another of his inventions is this, [page 240, that the Law pro­mulgated on Sinai, respected only the Israelites or them pecu­liarly] but how contrary to truth this is, I doubt not but it will appear evidently, if I live to see the Drs. proof for it; for as yet we have no more for it, but his own bare word.

Another of his inventions is, that the sabbath and the cere­monial Law is all one, page 235. stands upon the same bottom as his own words are; but how untrue and unreasonable this is, any man of judgement may clearly see with half an eye, for if it be true that the Doctor saith, and I believe, as well as he, that the Sabbath was instituted in Paradise, and hath its place by birth­right in the Decalogue, and is naturally moral, being made or appointed when it could have no eye to the mediation of Christ, as he saith himself, page 209. then is it impossible it should lose its nature, and that for no fault of its own to be degraded of its birth­right, to be made a vanishing shadow:

Again, his absurdity is as great in endeavouring to make us be­lieve the Shaddowy Law is any part of the Covenant of Works; for how can that be, seeing it was appointed a Law of Ordi­nances, shaddowing the body of Christ, and presenting his death and the benefits of it to the World, untill the time of Reforma­tion, Col. 2.16, 17. Heb. 9.9, 10. and although it presented him darkly, as a shaddow will a man, not so lively as an Image would; yet it did present him, Heb. 10.1, to 12. v. and so is [Page 14] of a Gospel nature as truely as any promises or branches of the Gospel are or can be.

Again, in the 229 and 231 pages, he brings forth another in­vention, but at lame rate, his business is to perswade us that the people of Israel were under the Covenant of works, and that it is his intention to make us believe it; observe his drift in page 228. wherein you shall have his own words, viz. [from the na­ture and tenor of the Covenant of works, so renewed among that people, there was begotten in their minds such a respect un­to the rigour of its commands, the manner of their observance or of obedience unto them, with the dread of its curse awfully de­nounced amongst them, as brought a servile and bondage frame of spirit upon them, in all, wherein they had to doe with God, by vertue of the Law and Rule of that Covenant; this frame of Spirit is that which stands in direct opposition unto the freedom and liberty purchased for us by Jesus Christ] and if this be not plain enough, note how he expresseth the terms of the Cove­nant of Works in the next page, which he concludes they were under. Namely, [Do this and live, and the man that doth these things, shall live in them, as also, cursed is every one that continues not in all things written in the Law to do them; and in the 231 page, the foundation, matter, manner of Administration, promises, and threatnings of it, were the same with the Cove­nant of Works] and all this is exprest to perswade us against keeping the sabbath as a burthensome yoke, as appears pag. 229. to all which, I answer. First, these things are asserted by him, with such contradictions, that makes the story in every ratio­nal mans account unpossible to be true, as that there was relief against it in the promise, and this is often mentioned, that there is relief against its rigour and curse, but what promise? that is, or how it should relieve men under a Covenant of Works, the Doctor tells us not, nor I suppose never can, if he had never so great a mind to doe it; for the Covenant of works will allow no other nor better promise then that named by himself; the man that doth these things shall live in them.

Secondly, and then he hath other exceptions against his own Doctrine: as that [the Church of Israel was not wholly or absolutely under it] what the Doctor intends by these expressi­ons is not certain, for he hath the gift to run along with new [Page 15] Notions, and large discourses, that want both explanation and proof, but we must guess at his meaning as we can, and to the best of my understanding, he must mean that they were under part of the old Covenant, but not under the whole of it, or else that they were partly under the Old Covenant, and partly under the new. But let him mean which he will, and what he will, such a party-coloured doctrine the scripture knows not, either they were under the Law or under Grace; God hath not two ways to justifie and save one and the same person or people, Rom. 11.6. if of grace, then not of works, but if of works, then not of grace; these two Covenants will yoak together in this matter, much worse then on Ox and an Ass, but if he thinks that these sayings of his have any truth in them, he shall do well to help us in his next book, and I would intreat him not to forget to answer this question, how and by what means the Church of Israel came by Relief against the Old Covenant, if they were under it, in whole or in part, whether they had it by vertue of Redemption by Christ, or without it; if by the means of Redemption, how unlike a Christian Dr. doth he write, let all men judge, that they should be redeemed, and yet remain, and that by Gods design under a Covenant of works for all that? If without Redemption they obtained that Relief, then what should hinder but that all other ages might obtain the same without Redemption, and then to what use will he put the blood of Christ?

But thirdly, if the matter and manner of Administration, Pro­mises, and threatnings of the Scripture of the Old Testament be the same with the Covenant of works, then how comes it to pass that there is so much gracious acceptance of sinners, and par­don of sin exprest therein? or how shall the two Covenants be distinguished, they be so like one another? it is to be feared, that if such Doctrine as this pass for current, this poor ge­neration will be cheated of their Saviour ere long; for if by ver­tue of the old Covenant so much happiness can be injoyed, there will be no great necessity of the new Covenant, or of the Medi­ators blood through which it only was made: But if these be the grounds upon which the Dr. erecteth his new Sabbath, blessed is he that keepeth it not; for how lamely soever he presseth the Old Covenant upon them, and would flatter them with some re­lief against its rigour; yet he confesseth it begetteth that frame [Page 16] of spirit that stands in direct Opposition to the freedom and li­berty purchased by Jesus Christ, and so by a true interpretation would make us believe they were not redeemed, for if they be, what should hinder that they should not be heirs of the same Co­venant of grace, to beget as good a frame of spirit in them as the Doctor himself hath? but I fear he thinks his pen is as much at liberty as some men think their tongues, or else he would never let it run so at randome as he doth; for there is of that race that understood the nature of the Covenant God made with them as well as the Doctor doth who were as free from a spi­rit of bondage as he is; and if he should offer to compare with them for eminency in grace I should take him for a proud man, but strange it is that a Dr. of his Learning and parts should be igno­rant that it is reckoned by that great Apostle Paul, the great Privi­ledge of the Gentiles, to be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of the same promise in Christ with them, Eph. 3.6. Note also, the context in the chap. before.

But fourthly, if the Doctors book should fall into the hands of the Jews, how can he chuse but think he inforceth them to scorn the Christian Religion, can they ever believe that God hath a greater kindness for the Gentiles then he had for the seed of Abraham, he must make them very fools before they will en­tertain that story.

Again, with how high a hand d [...]th he establish them in their unbelief; for they say and believe that the Covenant their Fa­thers and themselves are under, is a Covenant of works, and that it afforded them promises and mercy, and that they have acceptance and pardon upon, and for offer [...]ng sacrifice, and doing such things as the book of the book of the Law requireth; now the Dr. for substance saith, the same thing in terms plain enough in those three pages last named, and when they shall get such a Testimony for their bad and unbelieving principles, from a pro­fessed Christian Doctor of so great fame, Oh how will they bless themselves; for it is well known that the ground of their reje­cting the Lord Jesus, is their not believing that great truth of the Gospel, namely, that the old Covenant, since it was broken by sin, will not save any sinner, but that God might be just in shewing mercy to sinners, he gave his Son for a Sacrifice, that through his blood he might make a New Covenant, that might run upon more gracious terms or better promises, (as the Scrip­ture phraseth it) then the first had, this if you could perswade [Page 17] them of the truth of, and that all the grace and kindness that they and their Fathers injoyed, came this way, as indeed the truth is, they would soon believe in Jesus Christ, for they look not for a Messish more holy, nor one that shall confirm his Do­ctrine by more or greater miracles, or any more excellent qua­lification then he had, bin their alone quarrel against him, is for pretending to die for the forgiveness of sins, and to open a door of salvation; a work they conceive they needed him not for, but only to set them in a Kingdom state in this world: now if the Dr. had studied their hardening in unbelief (as God forbid I should think he did intentionally) yet if he had, he could never have taken a more mischievous course to effect his design, then to tell the Jews, the Church of Israel stood, or was put under a Covenant of work, by God in the wilderness of Sinai, and that the matter and manner of administration and promise, be the same with the Covenant of works. These two conclusions will roundly and rationally follow, that certainly, if there had been any such new Covenant that had been better then the Co­venant of Works, it would have been made at that time, or be­fore, that they might not have lost their share in it, and to per­swade them against this conclusion, is to tell them non-sence for Reason; for who in his right mind can believe that a people of such glorious promises, and partakers of such signall-love, should not stand under a Covenant, as richly advantagious for the Sal­vation of the soul, as ever God intended for any other people in the world.

The second conclusion is this, and it runs as clear, that if this great Christian Doctor speaks the truth in saying, that the mat­ter and manner of administration among the Jews is the same with the Covenant of works, then can the Christian Religion be but a meer cheat; for impossible it is that it can be a part of the Covenant of Works, if it be what all Christian Preachers have pretended it to be hitherto, for they have all pretended till now that the Mosaical Ordinances were shadows of the Body of Christ, and if they had indeed been appointed to such a Service, then would they have been of the nature of their Gospel dispensation, and so would have preached Righteousness by grace, through the Mediatours blood, to whom, and to whose death, they pointed, and so could not have been the same with the Covenant of Works; for if they be so, then they would have been out duty by Crea­tion, although we had not sinned nor fallen in Adam. Thus [Page 18] hath this Doctor contradicted all his Brethren the Apostles.

And thus may the poor Jews go on triumphing against the Christian Faith and Religion, to the further hardning of them­selves and posterities against their Saviour, and their own souls; but I cannot stand to answer all, nor many of the absurdities I find in this book, nor yet can I let some few more of them pass without some little examination, page 232. he saith [ [...] Sabbath or an holy rest belongs unto every Covenant between God and man] to which I say first, how came the Dr. to know this, un­less some text in holy writ had told him so; but suppose I let the Doctor have his saying about his new found Covenant; for I suppose it is as new to other men, as it is to me; namely, that Covenant of Works that is not absolutely so, nor so in whole, but Iudaical and Ceremonial, beginning and ending with the Church State of the Iews.

I say this Covenant, and that which was a Covenant of works absolutely, and so in whole, both these C [...]venants although he will have them to have two Sabbaths belonging to them, the one to continue, the other abolished at the Death of Christ, yet he cannot deny but the very self same seventh day was the day of Sabbbath to them both; now if that day served two Covenants turns, wherefore may it not serve the third Covenants turn also? I should say if there were so many, for indeed I never understood more Covenants then that of works, and that of grace. To which all other Covenants mentioned in Scripture do referr, or are bran­ches or fruits of it. That which he pretends was made with Is­rael, can be no other but one of his inventions, but, here it is pos­sible the Dr. may stumble and miss his way, that because God brought Israel by a solemn agreement or Covenant to submit to his will, and calls elsewhere, the ten Commands, the first Cove­nant, and the old Covenant, he therefore concludes that God made a Covenant of works with them, imposing those hard terms he speaks of upon them; the man that doth these things shall live in them, and cursed is he that continues not in all things written in the Law to doe them; else I cannot see how he comes to run into all those extravagancies with which his book abounds; but although that great mystery may require a vollume by it self (which I am not without thoughts of) yet thus much I shall say here, that no such Covenant was intended by the Lord to yoke that his dear people appears plain enough, Rom. 10.5, in these [Page 19] words Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the Law, that the man that doth those things shall live in them.

From which place it is evident, that God expected no such le­gall obedience from them, for Moses is but here said to describe the Laws righteousness, and to let the Jews know, or any that were polluted with their principles, that if they would have Righteousness by the Law, they must have it upon those impossi­ble terms, as also to let them know upon what terms the world stood; in the day of innocency, the Chief design being to put men upon seeking righteousness by Christ, as appears by the words before, and that Evangelical obedience only was the utmost God expected at their hands, see the words following: but the righteousness of Faith speaketh on this wise, the word is nigh thee in thy mouth, and in thy heart. I need not repeat all the words, but every man that hath any reasonable understand­ing, may see that God required no other obedience from them, but the obedience of faith; to the which they were graciously in­abled by the mediation of Christ, that shall but compare, Rom. 10. Deut. 30. now for the Scripture calling this Law the old Covenant, it is unreasonable to suppose it so, from its being de­clared at Sinai, but from its being given to Adam in innocency; for this see the Synods large Catechisme, where it is proved with g [...]eat authority.

One thing more from this part of the Book I shall note, and that is, the Doctors great mistake of Pauls sense of Gal. 4.24. his sense is that of Gods Law by his design, or the Laws tend­ancy, genders to bondage; whereas it is evident from the scope of the place, that it is the trusting to the works of the Law for righteousness that genders to bondage, through mens errour and corruption, perverting the mind and councel of God in trusting to the Law, for that help which it could not relieve them with­all; and so I shall come to consider how well the Dr. performeth his promises in the beginning of his Book, pag. 24. he saith [that the day of Sabbath is now instituted under the New Testament] an institution all men know is an appointment from God, or some one or other by his authority. This if the Dr. perform, I will promise conformity if the Lord will, for he is so fair as to pro­mise to proceed in his proof by express testimonies of Scripture, and without the light thereof, he saith, we had better set still: al­so page 16. he would not have men think their opinions firm [Page 20] and established upon the seeming countenance of two or three doubtful Texts, and therefore in the 18 page presseth the ex­ercise and best improvement of the use of our Reasons, to judge of the clearness of the proof by scripture testimonys. Now here is as much ingenuity in these acknowledgments and promises, as can be desired, and if the performance be but according, there is no reason but to subscribe.

My intention is therefore in the reading of these two last exer­citations, to say little to some discourses that I meet with, but carefully to mind what is brought of clear and express testimony from Scripture for his first day sabbath, knowing how little the Drs. own words have signified in his four first exercitations, al­though there be ten times more of them, then there be of Gods words there, yet would I not wrong him for a world, for I free­ly confess to his praise, that when his concern lay to convince the men that are for no Sabbath, he proves the seventh day sabbath substantially from the Scriptures that will bear it so, that I need not say any thing more then he hath said for me, having no o­ther but our Scripture weapons to defend himself against them; but when he takes up arms against us, then we have words enough of his own, if that would serve the turn; but if in the reading of these 255 pages, I had found but one line of Gods words that had proved the first day the sabbath, either a changed sabbath from the seventh day, or a new instituted sabbath (for there is great difference between these two) it would have satisfied me, but to find such a multitude of Notions without proof, when proof was so needful, and when every notion wherewith he would perswade his Reader to believe the first day is of divine institution, needed proof as much as that for which it was brought. I then thought it high time to take a more exact view of his book, and to open the treasures of it unto the world. And now to his fifth exercitation, the which I find for the most part of it filled with new inventions, I shall begin with the 362, 363, 364. pages, as the top of the leaf directs me, where I find him telling it with as much confidence as if it were so indeed [that his Lords day hath an institution in the New Testament, and that on this day of his Resurrection he began and finished the new Creation of Heaven and Earth, and that then all the Starrs sang together, and all the Sons of God shouted for joy] these three [Page 21] strange stories will never be proved, if he should write as many Books to doe it, as a Porter can carry. But the fourth is worse then his fellows, for he affirmeth: (if that be but a sufficient proof) that with the institution of his new Sabbath came in a new law, and the new covenant of grace, the very naming of these things is enough to reprove them; what is become of the na­tural Moral Law now? that is perpetual indispensible, and uni­versal, but this is the fruit of writing great books about matters unwritten; I mean in holy Scripture, they use to forget at one end of the book, what they wrote at the other, but he might have done well to have told us what Law this is, and where it may be found, for I remember no text in the Scripture looking that way, except he should put it upon that text, Heb. 7.12. which speaks of the difference between Melchisedeck's Priesthood and Levie's, which would be impertinent to this business, but then he saith, came in the Covenant of Grace, and Law of Faith, for­getting what is written in Heb. 11. chap. and Rom. 4. chap. and Gal. 3. chap. with much more if needs were, but a woful thing it is to hear such Doctrine from a Doctor of Divinity, for no­thing is more certain then this, that there is no salvation by the Covenant of works, except we can be saved without justification, see Rom. 3.20. but I forbear naming Texts, because it is the te­nour of the Gospel; and therefore if the new Covenant of Grace entred not till the Resurrection of Christ, Adam and his whole posterity that dyed before his Resurrection are eternal­ly perished without any remedy.

These Shipwracking Doctrines this man hath run into, to father that humane invention of his first days Sabbath upon Je­sus Christ. For, right or wrong, upon him he Fathers it, as a proper Gospel new Covenant Sabbath, which he saith, [the Church could not pass one week without] pag. 365. but I have two considerations to lay before him, before we can agree. The first is, how he can prove it is possible that the Institution of this Gospel Sabbath must be before the week was passed, unless it had been Instituted upon the first first day of the week that Christ was risen, but on that first day it is certain it was not kept as a Sabbath, nor as a holy day; for although the Doctor hath the confidence to draw so large a confusion from the 20. chap. of John. Yet manifest it is that the day there mentioned, was the same day, Luke in his 24. chap. gives an account of the two dis­ciples [Page 22] travelling to Emaos, and Christ with them, and came back that evening, which going and coming was fifteen miles, and came to an assembly of his Disciples met in the night following that first day, which the Doctor pretends was instituted a Gospel Sabbath, one of his vain inventions; for it is evident that the two disciples did not believe he was risen till the first day sup­per time; nor the assembly of his Disciples till the night follow­ing that first day; nor is there one word recorded out of Christs mouth about keeping it then, nor at any other time, nor could the next first day be the instituted sabbath, for although the Dr. takes the liberty to say our Saviour left Thomas under his doubts till the next first day, that in the presence of his Disciples he might convince him; Yet with his leave the Text saith, after eight days, John 20.26. and this first appearance was upon the second day of the week, therefore he is an ill reckoner of the times if he bring it back to the second first day after his Resur­rection: but this is a small fault with him, so that the time he saith, it was instituted, is manifestly a mistake.

But the second consideration I shall lay before him is this, to desire him to help us in this great matter. First, how we shall come to understand three several Sabbaths, of a quite differing nature, commanded in the fourth Commandment, one a seventh day sabbath, naturally, moral, perpetual, indispensible, univer­sal, the Law af our creation commanded in the day of innocen­cy, when it could have no eye to the mediation of Jesus Christ. Another the seventh day precisely, commensurate to the Church-State of the Jews, and to begin and end with it. A third com­mensurate to the Covenant of grace, and of a quite differing na­ture from both the other, which was not to take place in the world, nor to be observed till the Resurrection of Christ. These are of great concernment to be cleared, which this book hath not done, although it hath asserted them; for they are a piece of a very new and deep Divinity, or else a very deep pit to snare poor ignorant souls, but besides, how this Gospel-Sab­bath he talks of, if there were such an one, should come to eat up that paradice institution of the seventh day sabbath sanctified, then when all things were very good, and could not possibly be appointed with respect to the Gospel dispensation, or any end the Dr. assigns it to, is meet to be further examined and cleared; for doubtless it is a miracle altogether as great, as it is for a [Page 23] Priest to make a new Christ of a piece of bread, but let us now come to consider of that Text where he layeth the stress of his institution of the first day sabbath, Heb. 4.10. for he that is entred into his rest, hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Before I come to examine the Text, I must put him in mind of his own good rules, 16, 17, 18. pag. to which good Laws if he had bound himself, as well as his Antagonist, he would not have alleadged this Text to prove the first days in­stitution. For first, this Text is too doubtful for a conclusion of so great importance. Secondly, there is in it no expressness of Testimony, and so by his own Law he had better have sate still. Thirdly, no mans reason but the Drs. own, can understand this Text as the Dr. doth, for himself confesseth in the same place, page 377. that generally Expositors be of another mind. And now to the Text it self; for him to take upon him to expound the word he in the text to be meant of Christ, when the verse before expresly nameth the people of God, and the verse following doth the like, but no mention there of Christ. Secondly, nothing can be more evident then this, that the Chapter treateth of that Glorious rest prepared for the people of God, in another world, which the Unbeliever will fall short of. But not a single word about the first day of the week; it is not so much as named there, nor is there any mention of any Institution of a Gospel Sabbath, more nor less; nor is there any ground for him to suppose that any such Gospel Sabbath is needful, for the world had stood by vertue of the Covenant of Grace, almost 4000. years before the Resurrection of Christ, and had as true a share in his Blood and Gospel promises, as those have that came after him, and that live in the world at this day, and no such new Covenant Sabbath was necessary then, nor can I see any reason wherefore it should be thought so now by any, but only men of new inventions, and that their state was a Gospel dispensation before Christs coming, as well as since. Take one Text instead of many, in this fourth of the Heb. 2 ver. For unto us was the Gos­pel preached, as well as unto them; words plain enough to prove that a Gospel dispensation as well as this, but because it is to the best of my knowledge, no learned mans judgment to differ from me in this matter but Mr. Owen,: I shall say no more to it, but give him one reason more, wherefore his new Sabbath is needless, or rather dishonourable to God, for it cannot be deny­ed, [Page 24] but when God gave the Law of the Sabbath, it was holy, just, and good, nor can there be any colour, reason, for its de­generating of it self; but it must be as good a Law now, as when it was first made, unless the sin of man have made an alteration. Now can it suit with Scripture, or any wise and good mens rea­son to believe, that because wicked men make void Gods Law, that therefore God joyneth with them, and maketh void his own Law: but if any should object, that the works of Redemption hath made a nullity of it; I answer, that is as absurd as the o­ther. For what sense or possibility is here in this, that Christ should come to redeem us from the curse of the Law, as the Scripture saith he did, Gal. 3.13. and from the obedience of it, also these two ends are absolutely irreconcileable, but if the Dr. should come in, as a man alone, and say, that the Law that in­joined the keeping of the Sabbath from the beginning, injoines the keeping of the first day sabbath (as in some places of his book seems plainly to be his sense) yet this cannot help him, but ra­ther shews him to be a man that needs no man to contradict him, but he can doe it fast enough himself; for manifest it is, that it cannot agree with what he here saith, and in the scope of this fifth exercitation is often asserted, Namely, that his first day sabbath comes in with the Covenant of grace at the Resurrection of Christ; and was appointed for the honour of beginning and compleating the new Heavens and new Earth by Christ, with many like expressions, quite contrary to what himself asserted in the former part of his book, concerning the morality of the Sab­bath, as you have read a little before, which, without all con­troversie was, as hath been said often, of the same birth and dig­nity with the rest of the D [...]calogue, and so cannot be of the nature of the gospel, but it must have been the duty of the world, if we had kept our innocency, and therefore to think that this Law of the Sabbath, and his gospel Sabbath (if such an one there were) both stand by one and the same command in the Decalogue, is below a rational man to believe. Now for his other Text, Acts 20. 1 Cor. 16. they have been discharged of the service the Dr. would put them to, by my self, and many other, long since in my Quaeries to the Ministers of London, and in the appeal to the Parliament; to which I shall add thus much, that all that he can urge from these Texts, is no ground of a sab­bath, for if they were, the Thursday will bear away the Bell [Page 25] from the Sunday; for on that day at night was the institution of the Lords Supper, and on that day he ascended to his rest in glo­ry (this is beyond a dispute) but did not rest on the day he rose, as hath been proved; nor can the Dr. prove the first day is na­med, in those Texts, the word being one of the Sabbaths, let him ask his Greek Testament if I lye, and for Rev. 1.10. I onely say, if the Scripture had in any place called the first day of the week, the Lords day, then that Text must have had some consi­deration. But for him to interpret that Text to be meant of the first day of the week, is to beg the question; in this part of his book I find him insinuating this leaven into his Readers ear in many passages, that the Apostles and Apostolical Churches owned and kept the first day of the week as a Sabbath, instead of the seventh day; to which I answer, that for those read in anti­quity, he cannot deceive them, but the most that may see his book, I fear may be too apt to pin their ears to his lips, for whose sakes I would have him remember what is written, Deut. 27.18. Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way, and there will come a day when all the people shall say Amen. For the truth of this manifestly appears in the second Book of Dr. Heylins History, to which I shall add the testimony of that learn­ed Scribe, Dr. Prideaux, in his book of the Sabbath; who affir­meth, that the first day of the week in those purest times, was ne­ver kept as a Sabbath, but the seventh day was kept by them without noise or scruple; and that all antiquity is so manifest for this, that places need not to be named, with more to the same purpose. Also in the same book he disswadeth from pressing any Texts of holy Scripture to prove the first day kept by divine au­thority, saying plainly, that if we meet with an Antagonist that will not be easily baffled, there is nothing in the Scripture that will bear it; but indeed it is vain for us to expect that Dr. Owen should deal faithfully with antiquity, when he dealeth so unfaithfully with the Law of God, as in page 399. he affirmeth, that [the seventh day sabbath is not direct y nor absolutely re­quired in the Decalogue] and instead of offering any proof from Scripture, to shew that he might be allowed by the sense of some other Text to deal so with the fourth Commandment, he goes on with one quibble upon another, till he would needs put this absurdity upon his Antagonist, that in case they will not al­low more sabbaths in the command then the seventh day, that then we must read it, the seventh day is the seventh day; just as [Page 26] if we must be as absurd as himself; for what need we read the seventh day the seventh day, so long as God hath warranted and commanded us to read the seventh day the sabbath of Jehovah thy God; but now let us look into the root of this cunning fetch, whether he hath a real advantage given unto him, or makes bold to take one without leave, thus to quibble with God and Man, and you shall presently see how he suck's it out of his own fingers by his [is, and his [a] is often repeated a seventh day and a seventh day, is another of his own inventions, for there is no such a seventh day in Gods word, and therefore so oft as he hath used it he hath prophaned Gods word, and so his holy name and will, ill answer it one day unless he repent. So likewise for his is, it is the same, a meer humane invention, there is no such is in the Commandment, as the seventh day is the sabbath, let him leave that out, and read the commandment as it ought to be read, the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, giving the same day both the names, seventh and sabbath, as God himself doth, and then let him see how many sabbaths he can find in the fourth Commandment, more then the precise seventh day sabbath: if he were an ignorant man he were the less to be blamed for his mistakes; but he may know, A and is which he hath built his Judaical and new Covenant sabbaths upon, are not in the fourth Commandment, and this is the com­mendation of learned Ainsworth, although he were for the first day sabbath, as many other good men were, yet this is his honour, that he to favour his private opinion never falsified the sacred text, but translates it faithfully, and where he puts in suppliments, he so puts them in, that all men may see what is in the Hebrew Text, and what not. I shall write what he translates, as Gods own words; Remember thou the Sabbath day to san­ct [...]fie it, six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy work, but the seventh days sabbath to Jehovah thy God, thou shalt not doe any work. So that let the Doctor read no more then the sacred Text hath in it, and he will never find more then one se­venth days sabbath, but in his 407 page, he would fright us from Sabbath keeping, by threatning an Impossibility of Communi­on with them that keep the first day, but he may be mistaken, for it may be some of those men that keep the first day, may not be so shie of Communion with us as the Dr. is; but if they all should be of his mind, if they be men of no more skill in preach­ing [Page 27] the Gospel, then he hath in handling the Law, the loss will not be great; but in the next page he seemeth to discourage sabbath keeping, from what the sabbath keepers hold touching the penalty for breach of it; but all I shall say to this matter, is, that he that would know our sense herein truly, may see best in our own words; my answer to Mr. Grantham, will not only speak for my self, but also for the generality of Sabbath keepers in the land, to the best of my knowledge, which if the Dr. had read be­fore he had printed his book, he would hardly have found any argument thence to discourage Sabbath-keeping, but it were well if the Dr. had told us wherefore he calls that penall Law the curse of the Law. I would hope he should have more judgement then to think that bodily punishment in this world is all the curse that the transgressours of Gods moral Law are like to meet with, or that Christ came into the world to destroy civil Go­vernment, and to set free from punishment evil doers, or to trans­form Gods Law into the Dr. knows not what. For, if he have any good meaning, it is hard to understand it, for in the whole discourse following, he talks at such a strange rate, as if sab­bath keeping necessarily brought men under a yoak of bondage, using many hard speeches, either against us, or against Gods Law; but plainly upon sabbath keeping his charge is, which in reason must reflect upon the service and work done, and on men only as the doers of it. For he saith, it is a yoak of bon­dage to the persons and spirits of men, and pretends it unbear­able and against the mind of Christ, 409. page. But by the way there should have been some clear proof of these high charges; but this is like to tarry till the Dr. writes another book to prove those many assertions in this that pass without proof hitherto. And now I shall to these charges say, First, this cannot be char­ged on us, our well known principles and doctrine be as purely Evangelicall as the Doctors, for his life, looking for righteous­ness by the works of the Law, no more then he doth, nor can see no manner of reason, wherefore we should be in any more danger of that snare in keeping the Sabbath, then he is in keep­ing the first day; but the charge must lye against the Sabbath it self. Therefore we must search out the reason: and in the next page the Dr. he gives us such as he hath, he would make us believe it is at open contradiction with the spirit, rule, and word of the Gospel, and con [...]rary to the liberty wherewith Christ hath made [Page 28] us free. To all this I say, That if this be the nature of the sab­bath to work us such ruine, how cruelly did God deal with his people Israel, to command them a service, which set them at odds, both with spirit, gospel, Christ and all, for we have our liberty in him by vertue of his death. But certain it is, Nehem. 9.13, 14. was not of the Doctors mind; for had he took it to be so destructive to mans happiness, he would never have num­bered it among Gods great mercies to come down upon mount Sinai, to make known to them his holy Sabbath, And the Dr. confesseth it was the precise seventh day sabbath that God fit­ted to that Church State, and he fitted them with a witness, if the Drs. Doctrine be true, to set them at open contradiction with all their great and eternal happiness.

But secondly, it is something strange me thinks, that Sabbath keeping should be so dangerous, seeing it is of the same birth, and hath the same priviledges with its fellows in the Decalogue: Certainly, if the ten be of one birth and breed, and one of them of so ill a nature, the Dr. had need to consider whether he hath not opened a gap to Rantism wider then he will stop in haste.

But thirdly, if sabbath keeping have no consistence with Christ, his spirit, and Gospel; He that believeth this can never believe that any happiness by Christ was intended for them that were injoyned to keep it; a Doctrine as black as hell; let him turn it which way he will, for if he say they are perished, the black­ness of that may be seen without Spectacles; if he say they might be saved without him, that is as bad, if not worse, as will ap­pear (if he should say it) if he should say they might be saved by Christ, but we cannot. How plainly doth this condemn the design of his whole book, for hath it not been his main work hitherto to perswade us the Jews were under a Covenant of works, and had a sabbath suted to that dispensation, And the new Covenant came in at the Resurrection of Christ, with a Gospel Sabbath suted to this dispensation. But if he confess they might be saved by Christ, then it will roundly follow that he had as true a share in Christs blood as we, and so were as truly un­der the Covenant of grace, for other ways they could not be sa­ved by him, and if so, it cannot be denyed but their state was a Gospel Dispensation; and if so, then the precise seventh day sabbath suted the Gospel dispensation very well: and then what is the Drs. book good for?

Now let us see how he winds up this discourse in the 411 pag. there he asserteth the seventh day sabbath, (for of that he treat­eth) is a meer precept of the old Law as such; and what the Law speaks, it speaks to them that are under the Law. To which I say, I freely confess it is a precept of the old Law, what will he have out of this, if he speak this to perswade us that because it is so, it is truth, and must be walked in, as 2 John 6. It were like a Mini­ster of the Gospel; but his scope sheweth he hath a quite con­trary end, viz. to disparage God, Law, because it is antient. Nei­ther is there any doubt but the Law speaks to those that are under it; but wherefore doth he urge it so perversly? It is evi­dent the Apostle, Rom. 3.19. urgeth it to prove, that it is all the worlds duty to own its authority and power, to command obe­dience at their hands, and to humble them, and stop their mouths before God, because they have no better obeyed it; but this Dr. hath a quite contrary design, he aims to get from under its do­minion, and because it is severe over the soul and conscience of those that are under it, therefore he talks of extricating himself and those he can perswade to follow him from under its power and authority. A braive bait for the flesh I confess, if it were but as safe a way to the Crown, there were no course like it, but least any should think I wrong him, take him in his own words, [in all its precepts, it exerciseth a severe dominion over the souls and consciences of them that are under it, and we have no way to extricate our selves from under that dominion, but by our be­ing dead unto its power and authority as such, through the death of Christ] Now let us examine the drift of this discourse, and first to the first words of it. In all its precepts it exerciseth a se­vere dominion; here we are to note his quarrell in the first place is with the sabbath, but it seems not with that only, but with all the precepts of the Decalogue, and wherefore could he not have told us so at first, but to lead us along with strange stories, first, of a Moral Sabbath, then of a Judaical Sabbath, then last­ly of a Gospel Sabbath, never heard on in the world before; with this riddle, that the fourth command is the root of them all, although the last be of a Gospel nature, pertaining to the Co­venant of grace; and when all comes to all, the business is this, that all the precepts of the morall Law are too streight a yoak for the Drs. neck; and let us consider his reason for it, and that is ex­prest in these words. Over the souls and consciences of those that [Page 30] are under it, Mark this reason well: men that sometimes steer the course of error with a high hand, yet the truth will drop out of their mouths sometimes against their wills, for by the rule of his own reason, here some are under it, and that it hath so just an authority over them, that it binds their souls and consciences unto obedience, for nothing can bind the conscience but just au­thority; now if just power bind the consciences of some, I can­not see how any can be justly discharged of the same obedience. But then the Dr. tells us, we have no way to deliver our selves from under that dominion, but by being dead unto its power by Christs death. Well let this be considered also, and by the way, it would be known whether there be any difference between extri­cating the Law it self, or our selves, from under its authority but let us consider farther how we do or can become dead to the laws au­thority by the death of Christ, for as he hath exprest himself, I am a stranger to the matter, and to the best of my knowledge the Scrip­ture is so also; I very well remember the Apostle, Rom. 7.4. tells us, we are become dead to the Law by the body of Christ, which, if he expound, it is meant of his death, I will allow it him, but he must remember that this death to the Law is in order to fruit-bearing unto God, and not to its just power and authority in commanding obedience at our hands; Christ never dyed for a­ny such unworthy end, therefore let him not slander Christ whatever he casts upon the Sabbath-keepers; but this I shall say for my brethren as well as for my self, we are all of us of the Apostles mind, quite dead to the Law, not having the least hope or expectation to bring forth any acceptable fruit unto God by vertue of it, we look not at all to receive grace or strength from the Law, to sanctifie us, no more then to justifie us. But what then? because it will not serve our turns instead of a Saviour; Must it be turned out of all office, and be degraded of its domini­on, power, and authority? So that it shall not bind our consci­ences to obey it? We have better learned Christ then so, to make him the minister of sin. This doctrine of being dead to the authority of the Law, would please the Antinomians, (the Fa­thers) very well, and the Ranters (their children) as well, but the Sabbath-keepers like it not: But then the Drs. heart misgi­ving him, as I am apt to think, in this rash undertaking, to discharge believers of their obedience to Gods Law, upon the account of Christs death; seems in his next words rather to put it upon the score of his actual obedience in these words [or by faith [Page 31] in the benefits, that through his fulfilling and satisfying the Law, doe redound unto the Church] To all which, I say, I have heard the actual obedienee of Christ abused enough before now, but I never heard any man say before, that Christs obedience to Gods law should discharge the Church from her obedience thereunto. But the Lord deliver me from being a member of that Church, that makes no conscience of keeping the ten commandments. But a passage or two more I shall note. Among other unsavoury sentences this is one [doe men appeal to the Law, to the Law they must go] just as if there were no possibility of yielding any Evangelicall obedience to the Law, but that it must be kept for to obtain righteousness or justification, or not keep it at all; but he proceeds. [Its a meer legall duty, properly so called, and in a bondage frame of spirit without any especiall assistance of grace it must be performed] who would think that such words came from a Dr. of Divinity, how much less from him who hath asser­ted in the beginning of his book, the natural, morality, indispen­sibleness, and universality of obedience due to this very Law, that he now thus brandeth with the Characters of legal and bon­dage, and threatneth men that they shall have no especial as­sistance of grace to perform it. But that which is worst of all is, that he Fathers this Doctrine upon some author or other, under the name of our Apostle (which men that read not, nor heed not the Scriptures, may think he means some Apostle of Jesus Christ, but such Doctrine as this I am well satisfied never came from any Apostle, except from some one or other sent forth from the City of Atheisme. The last exercitation of his book) if it con­cern'd the Sabbath, or that it were directions for the right obser­vation of it, I could not well agree with the Dr. in all things: but seeing it is a day of humane institution, humane directions, about the manner of its observation, may well serve the turn. And so much for this controversie at this time, the third moneth called May 24. 1671.