<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2014-11-26</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Olivia Bottum</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Corrected markup.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B29258">
<STC T="W">S398D</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99832307</BIBNO>
<VID>207313</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>AN Examination OF A LATE BOOK Publi&s;hed by Doctor Owen, CONCERNING A Sacred DAY of REST.</P>
<P>Many Truths therein as to the Morality of a Chri|&s;tian Sabbath, a&s;&s;ented to.</P>
<P>With a Brief Inquiry into his Rea&s;ons for the change of it, from the Seventh Day to the Fir&s;t; by way of Denial.</P>
<P>As al&s;o, The Con&s;ent of <HI>DOCTOR HEYLIN,</HI> and others, touching the Time and Manner of that Charge.</P>
<P>With an inquiry into the nature of his a&s;&s;ertions, about the fir&s;t and &s;econd Covenant.</P>
<P>By <HI>WILLIAM SELLERS.</HI></P>
<P>Printed in the Year, MDCLXXI.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>To the Impartial READER.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Reader,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P><HI>I</HI> Am apt to think, thou maye&s;t wonder at my under|taking to oppo&s;e the Doctrine of &s;o Learned a Scribe, as Doctor <HI>Owen:</HI> but I &s;hall give thee the Rea&s;on of it. I know well, through the tender mercy of God, that I am on the upper ground with him; for I &s;tand for the defence of a Cau&s;e that will &s;ave it &s;elf, and bear out me; it was far from my heart, to contend with this Worthy Man, if there had not been a ju&s;t nece&s;&s;ity. For, I de&s;ire not contention with good men, nor did I ever draw the long &s;word again&s;t any Antagoni&s;t, for want of love to him, nor do I now, and hope I never &s;hall; nor hath any &s;ini&s;ter end what&s;oever prevailed with me in this matter of controver&s;ie; but knowing right well, that if I &s;hould &s;tand &s;till, and &s;ee the truth of God trodden down at &s;uch a rate, as in his Book it is, and I alto|gether
<PB REF="3"> hold my peace, being, by his grace, put into &s;ome capa|city to defend it, he would never take it well at my hands, in the day of account. So referring thee to my following Lines, for the trial of the Controver&s;ie: not in|tending to meddle with it here: but intreating thee to pray thine heart into an hone&s;t frame, to give true Judgement between the Doctor and me: and that as thou lovest thy be&s;t Interest, take heed thy wordly Intere&s;t do not bya&s;s thee. So &s;ub&s;cribes,</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Thy Souls well-wi&s;hing Friend, <HI>W. S.</HI></SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="3">
<P>I Having met with a Book of Doctor <HI>Owen's,</HI> a man of note for Piety and Learning: I gladly &s;et time apart to read, and con&s;ider it, concluding I &s;hould find &s;ome wor|thy &s;ervice done by him, that would tend to the good of the pre&s;ent, and &s;ucceeding generations: although I did expect a difference might remain between him and me, about the preci&s;e Day of Re&s;t; but if I had found no other difference be|tween me and him, nor between the truth and him, then I might in rea&s;on expect. I was re&s;olved to &s;ignifie to him in a Letter, what in his Book did di&s;-&s;atisfie me, and &s;ee his an&s;wer, (if it might have been obtained) before I did openly appear again&s;t 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. <HI>Dod,</HI> Dr. <HI>Bayly,</HI> Mr. <HI>Chaudry,</HI> Mr. <HI>Shepheard,</HI> and &s;everal others, who, from a conceit that the Day of Sabbath was changed to the fir&s;t day of the week, by Chri&s;t; argued it at the be&s;t rate they could, but &s;till with this circum&s;pect care, in all they &s;aid, to keep the Crown as honourably as they could, upon the head of the fourth Commandment. Now my expectation was, that Dr. <HI>Owen,</HI> 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 &s;aw it was no Letter matter, but it was a piece very di&s;honourable to the Chri&s;tian Re|ligion: but my intention is not to meddle with all I di&s;like, but to &s;peak to &s;ome of the mo&s;t dangerous mi&s;takes, that are mo&s;t likely to &s;nare the &s;ouls of men; but withall, I freely confe&s;s, there be many excellent pa&s;&s;ages of Truth a&s;&s;erted by him, if he had not plucked down with one hand, as fa&s;t as he built with the other. The be&s;t of his &s;ayings I &s;hall not conceal.</P>
<P>And fir&s;t, to what I find in his Epi&s;tle, take, and it is worthy. <HI>The publick profe&s;&s;ion of Religion, and the rule it bears in the minds and lives of men, cannot be maintained without a due ob&s;ervance of a &s;tated day of Sacred Re&s;t, which had its beginning by Gods own appointment.</HI> Now this is a true &s;aying, and the &s;en&s;e of the mo&s;t Judicious and Godly Mini&s;ters among us this day, who will be as ready to &s;ay as he, no Sabbath, no Religion; how contrary &s;o|ever
<PB N="2" REF="4"> both they, and the Congregations with them, walk to this Rule. Like pa&s;&s;ages we find in the third page, [where he, com|plaining of mens inventions, univer&s;ally perverting the &s;tate of all things made of God, giving in&s;tance 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 &s;eventh day Sabbath, ex|pre&s;t <HI>Gen.</HI> 2. if he intended his meaning &s;hould be known by his words. But again, after &s;ome worthy acknowledgments [of the Advantages, that lay in that day, and duty of keeping it, then he &s;ayes, it might be &s;o &s;till to the &s;ons of men, but that they are continually finding out new inventions] now would any man think that it were po&s;&s;ible, after &s;uch a te&s;timony borne by him|&s;elf 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 him&s;elf &s;hould prove &s;uch a man of invention, as pre&s;ently to face about, and write a Book of inventions, again&s;t this very day and duty, he hath borne &s;o high a Te&s;timony for; as in the fourteenth page of his Book, he falleth to Nick-name this very day, calling it the [<HI>Judaical</HI> Sabbath] with reproaching them as [unwary and unadvi&s;ed per&s;ons that keep it] but whether again&s;t his Con|&s;cience, I dare not &s;ay, but again&s;t his principles, I dare &s;ay, he doth it; &s;ee his thirty &s;eventh page, where he &s;aith expre&s;ly, [the name given in Scripture to a day, it mu&s;t be called by, and not otherwi&s;e] now this is true; for if we call any thing by a wrong name, we deceive the under&s;tandings of all we &s;peak to, and al&s;o tran&s;gre&s;s the Scripture Rule, 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.13. <HI>Hold fa&s;t the form of &s;ound words.</HI> Therefore, how he hath abu&s;ed Gods Word, and his Reader, both here, and in his whole fourth exercitation, where he brands the Sabbath with that name of <HI>Judaical;</HI> both the Reader and him&s;elf may judge; unle&s;s he can find the Spirit of God naming the &s;eventh day Sabbath <HI>Judaical,</HI> any where in Scri|pture. But I hope the Doctor, in the writing of his next Book, will remember to keep a little clo&s;er, to that good Doctrine expre&s;t in his twentieth page namely [it is onely walking according to Rule that will plea&s;e God] but by what Rule the Doctors Pen writeth, is meet for his own &s;econd thoughts, for &s;o irreconcile|able a man with him&s;elf, I think is hard to be found on earth; for in his twenty third page, there he fir&s;t proveth, from <HI>Gen.</HI> 2. and <HI>Exod.</HI> 20. that the Sabbath is called the Seventh day, and within a few lines after, he &s;aith, it is not ab&s;olutely &s;o called any
<PB N="3" REF="4"> 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 re&s;pect 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 Apo&s;tle ca&s;t out of u&s;e this appel|lation of the &s;eventh day, now under the New Te&s;tament, and hath antiquated it] but what Apo&s;tle he meaneth, and where we &s;hall find any proof for any of this, the D<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ctor tells us not. But another note I cannot but mind the Reader of, in his &s;econd Exercitation, where, after the writing of at lea&s;t fifty pages, proving the Sabbaths beginning in Pa|radi&s;e, and being naturally moral, the law of our Creation, and the like; he &s;ayes, it was [ab&s;olutely commen&s;urate to the Church-&s;tate of the <HI>Jews,</HI> beginning and ending with it] To this, I &s;ay, for the Sabbaths being commen&s;urate to the Jewi&s;h Church-&s;tate, I &s;ee no rea&s;on to gain&s;ay him; for my own Judgement is &s;atisfied, that the Sabbath is commen&s;u|rate to every &s;tate of the Church, and to every age of the world; there is no rea&s;on to the contrary; wherefore &s;hould it not as well as its fellows? fir&s;t, &s;econd, third, fifth, &s;ixth, &s;eventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth. But how it comes to begin and end with the Church of the Jews, had need to be well proved fir&s;t; and &s;econdly, well reconciled to what the Doctor hath &s;aid of it in his Book, which two works will co&s;t him two great Books more, before it be effected: but indeed I cannot but wonder, that he &s;hould think his bare word proof enough for &s;uch things as few men in the Land believe to be true, be&s;ides him&s;elf. But now, on the contrary, the Doctor, like a man led by two contrary &s;pirits, falls a contradict|ing this by fre&s;h arguments, to prove the &s;eventh day Sabbath naturally moral, and univer&s;al; as in the 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, and 128, pages, in all which places, he makes it his bu|&s;ine&s;s to prove it &s;o, with more to the &s;ame purpo&s;e, in the 149, 165, 178, 179, and 180 pages, unto which I referr the Reader, as being too numerous to be here in&s;erted. But I &s;hall name a pa&s;&s;age or two, and &s;o proceed; for he argues, [that the Cau&s;e he pleads, the command in the Decalogue will bear, and that the Sabbath hath an original right by birth, among&s;t the &s;ociety of the Decalogue, the rea&s;on is rendred, becau&s;e the &s;eventh day, or a &s;eventh day, in a &s;eptenary revolution, is expre&s;ly command|ed] but being con&s;cious to him&s;elf that this a&s;&s;ertion tends
<PB N="4" REF="5"> to confirm tho&s;e rationall men, that believe and &s;ay, that nothing more nor le&s;s is commanded in the fourth Command, but the &s;eaventh day Sabbath; he pre&s;ently falls to contradict both him|&s;elf and the truth, &s;aying, [that they &s;peak not only uncertainly but certainly fal&s;e, who &s;ay the fourth command injoynes the keeping of the &s;eventh day, preci&s;ely, and that the words of the Apo&s;tle &s;eems to lye expre&s;ly again&s;t it] but the be&s;t out is, he neither names the Apo&s;tle, nor the place; but you mey well know the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e they are not to be found in Scripture. But notwith&s;tanding the&s;e and &s;uch like contradictions, yet he goes on to prove the morality and equlaity of the fourth command with the Re&s;t, and among&s;t many other lively pa&s;&s;ages, this is one: [That it hath an equall &s;hare with the re&s;t 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 &s;aith, it is the Law, God promi&s;eth to write in the hearts of his elect, and ob&s;erves that the Church of <HI>England</HI> prayes as well for the writing of the law, of the Sabbath in their hearts, as any other of the nine.] And <HI>I</HI> &s;hall &s;econd the Doctor with this ob&s;ervation, that indeed it appears to me beyond a doub<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, that this Law is written fair enough to be read in the hearts of men, and &s;uch men who never kept Sabbath, nor never intend to do, &s;hould it notwith&s;tanding pray &s;o &s;eriou&s;ly at the reading of that Law, <HI>The Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this Law.</HI></P>
<P>Another &s;ub&s;tantial 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 con&s;ideration of it alone is enough to in|gage any con&s;idering per&s;on to make great con&s;cience of keep|ing every tittle of that Law; for who that con&s;iders Chri&s;t was typified thereby, to remove the cur&s;e of the Law, and to write it in the hearts of his elect, as the D<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ctor &s;aith, with what is fur|ther urged by him from page 181 to 193, can well harden his heart &s;o high again&s;t God, as to find or &s;eek out inventions to break the Sabbath, or any other of the&s;e ten words.</P>
<P>Next, the Doctor proves the duration and morality of the Sabbath, and that undeniably: unle&s;s you will deny the Sun &s;hines when the &s;hadow &s;hows the time of day on the Dyal. from <HI>Mat.</HI> 24.20. <HI>Mat.</HI> 5.17, 18, 19. <HI>James</HI> 2.10, 11. pre|&s;ently
<PB N="5" REF="5"> endeavouring to pull down all he had built in &s;aying [that what he had taught reached not to the &s;eventh day preci&s;ely, page 196] but in the 103 page I find an argument levied again&s;t the whole Doctrine, and &s;cope of his Book, which cuts the &s;inews and &s;trength of all his de&s;ign in two. The &s;um of all which is this, that there is but one Sabbath only &s;poken of in the Old Te&s;tament; for the Doctors bu&s;ine&s;s is to find the fir&s;t days Sab|bath, and the &s;eventh days &s;abbath, both in the fourth Command|ment, or el&s;e the Book is without de&s;ign, or the de&s;ign of it un|knowable, but let us &s;ee the Doctors an&s;wer.</P>
<P>And fir&s;t he an&s;wers by way of Conce&s;&s;ion [That never any &s;ober per&s;on fancied two &s;abbaths in the Old Te&s;tament] to which I &s;ay, what hath the Dr. been doing all this while then; for he hath written two hundred pages to prove the fir&s;t day &s;abbath from the fourth Commandment, the 2 <HI>Gen.</HI> and <HI>E&s;aiah</HI> 58. he need not to have been at the trouble to write two pages to prove the &s;eventh day &s;abbath from thence; for that was never any mans doubt.</P>
<P>Secondly the Dr. [puts prudent men to di&s;tingui&s;h between the &s;ab|bath expre&s;t in the Law of our cre|ation,<NOTE PLACE="marg">But will not the Reader think it &s;trange to find him after this indeavouring to prove <HI>3.</HI> Sabbaths from thence, one Moral, and another Judai|cal, and a third a fir&s;t day Sabbath of a Go&s;pel Nature.</NOTE> and the &s;ame &s;eventh day &s;abbath fitted to the Jewi&s;h Church State, and the Covenant they were under] But I dare be bold to &s;ay that he that can find two &s;uch &s;ea|venth days &s;abbaths, di&s;tingui&s;hed in the fourth Commandement, in any Bible that this age affords, is a man of skill, but what if he could find his impo&s;&s;ible di&s;tin|ction, he is &s;till but where he was, and neither the Sabbath in the fourth Commandment, nor that fitted to the Jewi&s;h Covenant, as he calls it, can be fir&s;t days Sabbath; he is &s;till as &s;hort of that as he was before he di&s;tingui&s;hed, but he goes on with the like words, till he concludes his an&s;wer with this confu&s;ion. [Nor is here the lea&s;t appearance of two &s;abbaths, but one only is com|manded unto all, and determined unto a certain day, for the u&s;e of &s;ome for a &s;ea&s;on] what he means by no appearance of two Sabbaths, is worthy our knowledge; for if he &s;peaks of the the Scriptures, then it is true there is no appearance of any more then one Sabbath only; but if he &s;peaks of his own book and
<PB N="6" REF="6"> words, nothing can be &s;poken more fal&s;e, for he hath a&s;&s;erted two in this very &s;ame 205 page [The one day belonging to the Covenant of works, and the other to the Covenant of grace by Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and this of the preci&s;e &s;eventh day to the Cove|nant of works] and if there be the preci&s;e &s;eventh day, and the preci&s;e fir&s;t day, and the&s;e belong to two &s;o di&s;tinct Covenants, how can he &s;ay there is no appearance of any more then one? and yet he adds in the &s;econd line [But one only is commanded unto all] the&s;e thing; hang together like Pibble Stones in a Hal|ter; for if one Sabbath be commanded unto all, of what u&s;e is the Doctors book in the world, unle&s;s to work &s;trife; but he proceeds [and determined unto a certain day for the u&s;e of &s;ome for a &s;ea&s;on] this hath a &s;trange look, what commanded unto all, and yet but for the u&s;e of &s;ome; but I &s;hall leave this for the Doctor to interpret.</P>
<P>Next he tells us [that one day in &s;even olny, and not the &s;e|ven<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">h preci&s;ely, is directly and immediately enjoyned in the De|calogue] but who knows not how contrary this a&s;&s;ertion is, God him&s;elf directly in the Letter of the Text, calls the &s;eventh day the Sabbath day, giving both the names to one, and the &s;elf &s;ame day, as all-men know that ever read the C<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">mmandments. This he goes over again with, in the next page, affirming, [The Rea&s;ons in the command do no more re&s;pect the &s;eventh day, then any other in &s;even] which how contrary it is to the expre&s;s Letter of the fourth Commandment, is manife&s;t, but with this notable contradiction [&s;ix days are granted to labour, that is, in number, and not more in a &s;eptenary revolution.] Now this is true beyond all rea&s;onable mens doubts, and therefore it is impo&s;|&s;ible for the fir&s;t day to be a Sabbath; for though it be often &s;aid that the Sabbath was changed from the &s;eventh day to the fir&s;t; Yet it is altogether impo&s;&s;ible to prove it, either by Scrip|ture or antiquity, and flat again&s;t the Doctors own words; for if &s;ix days in number be granted to work in between Sabbath and Sabbath, as it certainly is in the great Charter of the fourth Command, <HI>Six days &s;halt thou labour and do all thy work.</HI> Then it is impo&s;&s;ible that the fir&s;t day next in&s;uing the Sabbath, can be made a Sabbath without the manife&s;t breach of that great grant in that divine Charter confirmed by Je&s;us the Mediator, to one jot or tittle (which jot is the &s;malle&s;t Letter in the Hebrew Alpha|bet) now if Chri&s;t have e&s;tabli&s;hed that Law in all its commands
<PB N="7" REF="6"> and grants, <HI>Mat.</HI> 5.18. then it is impo&s;&s;ible for more then &s;e|ven days, to be between Sabbath and Sabbath, the next week af|ter the Re&s;urrection without as manife&s;t an intrenchment upon that &s;acred command where all fle&s;h is thus limited, <HI>but the &s;e|venth day the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, thou &s;halt not do any work;</HI> now for a man to &s;ay &s;o frequently [the &s;abbath hath a &s;eptenary return, and that its one in &s;even ab&s;olutely, or one in the revolution of &s;even, and that every week or &s;even days had a &s;abbath in it] and that &s;o often repeated, and yet at other turns &s;peak that which is &s;o ab&s;olutely incon&s;i&s;tent herewith, manife&s;t|ly di&s;covering how he was bewildered and hard put to it be|tween the two parties he fights again&s;t; to the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ne he &s;aith [it began in Paradi&s;e and all the Patriarch kept it, and the De|calogue will bear the cau&s;e he pleads, and the accepted time of Gods Wor&s;hip is declared and determined in the fourth Com|mandment] with many like expre&s;&s;ions; but when he &s;peaks to the other party that practice what he teacheth them, then he tells us [we are unwary and unadvi&s;ed per&s;ons for keeping it, putting a nick name upon it <HI>Judaical</HI>] and would make us believe it be|gan and ended with the Church State of the Jews and &s;uch like contradictions, not only to the expre&s;s te&s;timony of Gods word, but to his own <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ffirmations plain'd and expre&s;s in a multitude of places, as in th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> 209 page, where he hath to doe with tho&s;e that would have <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">bbath Typical, there he ri&s;eth up like a Gyant, and tells ther<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> was given before the fir&s;t promi&s;e of Chri&s;t, and that in th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;tate of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nnocency, and under the Cove|nant of works in perfect force, wherein there was no re&s;pect to the Mediation of Ie&s;us Chri&s;t] now here the Dr. may be belie|ved; but then it is not po&s;&s;ible to believe him, when he &s;aith, [it began and ended with the Iewi&s;h Church State] nor in tho&s;e ma|ny contradictions to it all along in his Book as in this very page he undermineth this Building to &s;et up that new device of the fir&s;t day Sabbath, he fetcheth his compa&s;s (as all mu&s;t do) that have no direct proof, brings in this &s;tory, [Of Chri&s;t, laying the Foundations of the new Heavens and the new Earth in his Re&s;ur|rection.]</P>
<P>This &s;peech, with more of like &s;ort are not to be owned, and enough to make the Jews abhorr the Chri&s;tian Religion, when &s;o great a Chri&s;tian Doctor &s;hall &s;peak &s;uch things as they and all men know to be &s;o fal&s;e; &s;uch things are lookt for indeed, 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 3.
<PB N="8" REF="7"> 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. but that need not be, if Chri&s;t fell upon this work &s;o long ago.</P>
<P>Secondly, I an&s;wer, if the fir&s;t day were Sabbath, now by in|&s;titution, as he &s;aith it is, page 25, or if he could prove it by ex|pre&s;s te&s;timonies of Scripture, as he promi&s;ed to doe, Page 17. I cannot believe he would have brought &s;uch pittiful proof as this is, that needs proving every word of it, but here is no Text urged for any of the&s;e a&s;&s;ertions; but if any could have been found, there was great need of them.</P>
<P>But thirdly, &s;uppo&s;e that at the Re&s;urrection 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 in|&s;titution it would have been but will wor&s;hip.</P>
<P>But Fourthly, if it were true as it is not, what agreement is there in his parallel? what rea&s;on is there that his new Sabbath mu&s;t begin the fir&s;t day? the foundations of the new Heavens and new Earth is laid, whereas God did not &s;o, he fini&s;hed his work before he &s;anctified the Sabbath, but the Doctor is very for|ward in the advance of his new Sabbath, not &s;taying till the work is fini&s;hed; 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 &s;how [the &s;ad inconveniencies and confu&s;ion that comes by taking out of Gods hand the divi&s;ion between the time that is allowed us for our own occa&s;ions, and what is to be &s;pent in his &s;ervice, and particularly for ca&s;ting off his example in working &s;ix days, and re&s;ting the &s;eventh] what for &s;ub&s;tance can a Sabbath keeper &s;ay more, who would not take the D ctor to be one if he were congruous to him&s;elf. See al&s;o the fulne&s;s of his Te&s;timony, pag. 19. 20. where he confe&s;&s;eth [the day of re&s;t hath uncontroulable te&s;timony in Scripture, in the light of na|ture, and practice of the Church, from the beginning of the world, not confining him&s;elf to Go&s;pel days] (as his own Phra&s;e is) now if the Doctor mean as he &s;aith, the &s;eventh day is the Sabbath by his own words, and as full a Te&s;timony as ever came or can come from the Pen of any Scri<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e; for what can be more evident then this, that Gods example leads us to the &s;eventh day, the un|controuble Te&s;timony of Scripture doth the like, and that this mu&s;t needs be his meaning, &s;ometimes is evident, &s;ee pag. 23. where he hath the&s;e words [This &s;acred day is called the &s;e|venth day, <HI>Gen.</HI> 2. <HI>Exod.</HI> 20.] &s;ure he cannot po&s;&s;ibly intend a|ny
<PB N="9" REF="7"> other day, by this proof, nor will the light of nature ever guide us to the keeping of the fir&s;t day, for that is &s;et up upon the account of the Covenant of grace, if the Doctors Doctrine be true; &s;ee his 205 page, where he argues the Ca&s;e thus, [That every Covenant of God with man mu&s;t have one of the &s;even days of the week for a Sabbath, whether that of works, or that of grace by Je&s;us Chri&s;t] now that which &s;tands by Grace, the light of nature will never take notice of, and the &s;eventh day preci&s;ely he &s;aith, belongs to the Covenant of works; now this preci&s;e &s;eventh day for a weakly &s;abbath, is the known day by the Churches practice from the beginning of the world, to this very la&s;t age, as may appear by Dr. <HI>Heylin<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> Hi&s;tory of the &s;ab|bath; where he affirmeth that the invention of keeping the fir&s;t day by vertue of the fourth Command, was not till the year, 1595 by Doctor <HI>Bound,</HI> which is but &s;eventy &s;ix years ago. Something of what I have gathered up from the &s;econd book of his hi&s;tory, I &s;hall here in&s;ert, and I find his Book full of pregnant proof from end to end, that none of the profe&s;&s;ed Chri&s;tian Churches in the world, Ea&s;t nor We&s;t, did never own nor keep the fir&s;t day of the week as a &s;abbath; nor did any of them judge the &s;abbath was tran&s;mitted from the &s;eventh to the fir&s;t day by any Divine In&s;ti|tution; nor was it ever by any accounted more then then other holy days were, of <HI>Ea&s;ter, Whit&s;ontide, Chri&s;tmas,</HI> Saints days, and the Wakes kept for the Dedication of Churches; nor were any of them &s;et apart but by the Church; with an opinion of their being holy, by any commandment of God, or Chri&s;t, or any Apo&s;tle, but of the Church only; and proves that they were never kept, nor intended to be kept as a &s;abbath, but &s;et a|part, partly for Wor&s;hip, and partly for Recreation, and that in a ca&s;e of great bu&s;ine&s;s (as Seed time and Harve&s;t it was lawfull to labour) and that neither work nor recreation was counted a tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion, if per&s;ons did not neglect the publick wor&s;hip, but came to Church. This is the &s;cope and bu&s;ine&s;&s;e of his Book.</P>
<P>And further he affirms, that the fir&s;t broachers of this inven|tion of the fir&s;t day being kept by vertue of the fourth Com|mandment, was not till the year, 1595 by Doctor <HI>Bound,</HI> whom he prints for a blemi&s;h and &s;candall to the Chri&s;tian profe&s;&s;ion, 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 &s;abbath,
<PB N="10" REF="8"> and for &s;aying it is naturally moral and perpetual, &s;ee his 8 chapt. pag. 250. and yet &s;etteth the honour of a &s;abbath on the head of a &s;unday, as he often calls it. Now I &s;hall name a few of m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ny of the te&s;timonies mentioned in his book, as in his third pag. he ingeniou&s;ly and truly acknowledgeth, that if the fourth Com|mand were Chri&s;ts, be naturally moral, it is immutable, no jot or &s;yllable &s;hall decay till Heaven and Earth pa&s;s away. And fur|ther, that law mu&s;t &s;tand till the frame of nature be di&s;&s;olved, and c tes <HI>Luke</HI> 16.17. to prove it; but he takes it for granted, that the fourth Command is Ceremonial and aboli&s;hed, as the onely rea&s;on wherefore the &s;eventh day is not to be kept now, and in the &s;eventh page he affirms, that neither Chri&s;t nor his Di&s;ciples ordained any other &s;abbath then the &s;eventh day, as if they in|tended to &s;hift the day, and transfer the honour to &s;ome other time, though their Doctrine and Practice is directly contrary to &s;o new a fancy; but &s;aith he it is true, that in &s;ome tract of time the Church in honour of his Re&s;urrection &s;et that day apart, and going on with the &s;ame di&s;cour&s;e, 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 Apo&s;tles, nor any precept extent at all in holy &s;cripture for it, and brings in <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> &s;ay|ing, it was taken up by a voluntary u&s;age 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 the&s;e words the whole cloud of witne&s;&s;es, all the Catholick Fathers, and in the 11 pag. he twice expre&s;&s;eth it, that in rract of time the Church did &s;olem|nize it as a Fe&s;tival day and no otherwi&s;e, giving &s;ub&s;tantial rea|&s;ons from the &s;criptures to prove that neither Chri&s;t nor his A|po&s;tles had any hand in it; and goes on in &s;everal pages to re|move &s;uch objections as might carry any &s;how of wait in the 22 page, and 4 or 5 pages following he argues the great mi&s;take of that which is urged for the fir&s;t day from <HI>Acts</HI> 20.7. and 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 16.1. denying that in the 20 of the <HI>Acts,</HI> there was more then common eating, and affirming that the time was not the fir&s;t day in neither place, but &s;ome &s;abbath day, and brings &s;everal wit|ne&s;&s;es, both Fathers and Prote&s;tant writers upon the place, ren|dring it &s;abbath, as <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom, Lyra, Era&s;mus, Calvin, Pellican, Gualter,</HI> all noted men &s;aith he, who both in their tran&s;lations and expo&s;ition, call it &s;abbath day, page 23. and after in the 27 page cites further witne&s;&s;es, <HI>Victorinus, Strigelius, Hunnius,</HI> and
<PB N="11" REF="8"> <HI>Aretius,</HI> now in the 31 32 pages he gives us this account, that in the fir&s;t choice of the Sunday for the honour of the Re&s;urre|ction, the Friday was cho&s;e for honour of his Pa&s;&s;ion, the Wed|ne&s;day for that on it he was betrayed, the Saturday or antient &s;abbath, being the mean while retained in the Ea&s;tern Churches, and further tells us, it was the clo&s;e of that fir&s;t age before the Sunday had the honour to be called the Lords day, and clo&s;es his &s;econd chap, declaring, that it is far le&s;s dagger to call the fir&s;t day &s;unday, then to call it &s;abbath, it being contrary to all antiquity and &s;cripture; and in the 94 page he tells us, that for 300 yea<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s there was no Law to bind them to keep it, nor any re&s;t from labour or worldly bu&s;ine&s;s required upon it, and that it met with &s;uch oppo&s;ition, that it was more then a thou&s;and years after Chri&s;ts A&s;cention, before it could attain the State it &s;tan|deth in.</P>
<P>In the next place, he &s;aith, they that &s;et it up, may take it lower or quite away, or &s;ettle the honour it hath on another day; and &s;aith it is the doctrine of Schoolmen and divers Prote&s;tant writers of great name and credit in the World, as that which no man will pre&s;ume to &s;ay concerning the &s;abbath, who in the 140 pag<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, he &s;aith, it was near 900 years from our Saviours birth, if not quite &s;o much before husbandry was re&s;trained in the Ea&s;t on this day; and it is ob&s;ervable how much adoe there was in all ages from the fir&s;t making of the Law in <HI>Con&s;tantines</HI> time for a 1000 years together to force the people to keep it, no not &s;o far as to forbear Plowing and Marketting, and all manner of bu&s;ine&s;s what&s;oever, although the Councells made Canons, and the Kings and Emperours made Laws again&s;t it among&s;t a multi|tude of Orders, ob&s;erve one in the year 1444. what time the Arch Bi&s;hop <HI>Stafford</HI> made a Decree, that Fairs and Markets &s;hould no more be kept in Churches and Church-yards, nor on the Lords day, or other holy days, except in harve&s;t; this was in <HI>Henry</HI> the VI. time, pag. 229. And in the 180 and 181 pages, he brings the te&s;timony of more then I can &s;tand to name of mo|dern Divines, a&s;&s;erting it to be a Churh appointment, and no more voluntarily taken up, (and tells us of a con&s;ultation once to change it unto Thur&s;day) among which he names <HI>&V;r&s;in, Bren|tius, Calvin,</HI> Dr. <HI>Prediux, Chemnitius, Zuinglius, Bucer, Bil|linger,</HI> eighteen by name, &s;aith he, and all the <HI>Lutherans</HI> in General, and by what appears in the latter part of the 6th chap.
<PB N="12" REF="9"> and &s;everal places, the Ea&s;tern Churches keep the &s;eventh day all along from the Primitive times to this time; but I am weary of citing te&s;timonies, for if I &s;hould gather up all I might, my an|&s;wer would weary my Reader, he that hath a mind to know more, let him look into the book it &s;elf, where he &s;hall find te|&s;timony full and clear for this matter.</P>
<P>Now let every per&s;on of Ingenuity and Integrity, weigh the matter, for the Doctor hath not &s;poken the&s;e things at Rovers, but names the Councels, the Antient Fathers, the Princes, and the years of the&s;e a&s;&s;ertions and tran&s;actions from the Primitive times, to the year 1636. &s;o I &s;hall leave Dr. <HI>Heylins</HI> Te&s;timony to be con&s;idered, and return again to Dr. <HI>Owin</HI></P>
<P>Come we now to his 4th. exercitation, in which he indeavours to make us believe the Jews had the &s;eventh day &s;abbath injoy|ned unto them upon differing grounds upon the fir&s;t in&s;titution of it, and [now fitted to the Church State, and &s;uited to the Shaddary Law, and made liable to be aboli&s;hed with it] and abu&s;eth the Apo&s;tle, <HI>Col.</HI> 2.16. to &s;erve this intere&s;t, page 247. for evident it is, the Apo&s;tle names tho&s;e Sabbaths that are &s;hadow; of the bo|dy of Chri&s;t, and the Dr. him&s;elf hath di&s;charged the &s;eventh day &s;abbath from being of that number in proving it the Law of our Creation, and naturally Moral, indi&s;pen&s;able, and perpetual, and univer&s;al, 124, 152 pages, and that this is the 7th. day that mu&s;t be meant; &s;ee the Drs. own Te&s;timony pag. 3. where he complains [of mens perverting the State of all things made of God] and in|&s;tances in that &s;acred day of re&s;t, which God made for the ad|vantage of the Sons of men, and &s;ays [it might be &s;o &s;till, if men were not finding out new inventions) and in the 25 page he &s;aith (it is both Gods re&s;t and ours, and that from his in&s;titution, he calls it my Sabbath, and pre&s;&s;eth <HI>Gen.</HI> 2. and the Decalogue to prove it, and yet more plain in page 157. he &s;aith, God ha|ving fini&s;hed his work in 6 days, and re&s;ting on the 7th. given man thereby, and therein, the Rule and Law of his Obedience and Rewards for him to a&s;&s;ign any other mea&s;ure or portion of time for his re&s;t unto God in his &s;olemn wor&s;hip, is to decline the authority of God for the &s;ake of his own inventions) and in pag 164 he &s;aith (the Creation of the World in 6 days, with the re&s;t of God on the 7th. and that declared, gives unto all men an everla&s;ting Law) now is it not &s;trange that this &s;ame man &s;hould follow his own inventions till he quite faceth about, and faith (the
<PB N="13" REF="9"> &s;abbath was Judaical, and is ab&s;olutely aboli&s;hed and taken a|way, page 250] but let us &s;ee the ground and rea&s;on of the Doctors di&s;agreement with him&s;elf, and although his inventions be too many, and too trouble&s;ome for me to trace, yet I &s;hall take notice of &s;ome of them; the fir&s;t I &s;hall note is this, that he is conceited that there is two &s;eventh days &s;abbaths enjoyned in the fourth Commandment, and the one Moral, the other Ceremo|nial; the one a &s;eventh day &s;abbath, the other the &s;eventh day pre|ci&s;ely; the one in&s;tituted in Paradi&s;e, the other at <HI>Sinai;</HI> this is &s;o notorious, as all men know that are con&s;i&s;tent with them|&s;elves 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 lea&s;t mention of any &s;uch thing as a &s;eventh day &s;ab|bath, be&s;ide the preci&s;e &s;eventh day, no &s;uch 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 pro|mulgated on <HI>Sinai,</HI> re&s;pected only the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> or them pecu|liarly] but how contrary to truth this is, I doubt not but it will appear evidently, if I live to &s;ee the Drs. proof for it; for as yet we have no more for it, but his own bare word.</P>
<P>Another of his inventions is, that the &s;abbath and the cere|monial Law is all one, page 235. &s;tands upon the &s;ame bottom as his own words are; but how untrue and unrea&s;onable this is, any man of judgement may clearly &s;ee with half an eye, for if it be true that the Doctor &s;aith, and I believe, as well as he, that the Sabbath was in&s;tituted in Paradi&s;e, and hath its place by birth|right in the Decalogue, and is naturally moral, being made or appointed when it could have no eye to the mediation of Chri&s;t, as he &s;aith him&s;elf, page 209. then is it impo&s;&s;ible it &s;hould lo&s;e its nature, and that for no fault of its own to be degraded of its birth|right, to be made a vani&s;hing &s;hadow:</P>
<P>Again, his ab&s;urdity is as great in endeavouring to make us be|lieve the Shaddowy Law is any part of the Covenant of Works; for how can that be, &s;eeing it was appointed a Law of Ordi|nances, &s;haddowing the body of Chri&s;t, and pre&s;enting his death and the benefits of it to the World, untill the time of Reforma|tion, <HI>Col.</HI> 2.16, 17. <HI>Heb.</HI> 9.9, 10. and although it pre&s;ented him darkly, as a &s;haddow will a man, not &s;o lively as an Image would; yet it did pre&s;ent him, <HI>Heb.</HI> 10.1, to 12. <HI>v.</HI> and &s;o is
<PB N="14" REF="10"> of a Go&s;pel nature as truely as any promi&s;es or branches of the Go&s;pel are or can be.</P>
<P>Again, in the 229 and 231 pages, he brings forth another in|vention, but at lame rate, his bu&s;ine&s;s is to per&s;wade us that the people of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> were under the Covenant of works, and that it is his intention to make us believe it; ob&s;erve his drift in page 228. wherein you &s;hall have his own words, <HI>viz.</HI> [from the na|ture and tenor of the Covenant of works, &s;o renewed among that people, there was begotten in their minds &s;uch a re&s;pect un|to the rigour of its commands, the manner of their ob&s;ervance or of obedience unto them, with the dread of its cur&s;e awfully de|nounced among&s;t them, as brought a &s;ervile and bondage frame of &s;pirit 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 &s;tands in direct oppo&s;ition unto the freedom and liberty purcha&s;ed for us by Je&s;us Chri&s;t] and if this be not plain enough, note how he expre&s;&s;eth the terms of the Cove|nant of Works in the next page, which he concludes they were under. Namely, [Do this and live, and the man that doth the&s;e things, &s;hall live in them, as al&s;o, cur&s;ed 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 Admini&s;tration, promi&s;es, and threatnings of it, were the &s;ame with the Cove|nant of Works] and all this is expre&s;t to per&s;wade us again&s;t keeping the &s;abbath as a burthen&s;ome yoke, as appears pag. 229. to all which, I an&s;wer. Fir&s;t, the&s;e things are a&s;&s;erted by him, with &s;uch contradictions, that makes the &s;tory in every ratio|nal mans account unpo&s;&s;ible to be true, as that there was relief again&s;t it in the promi&s;e, and this is often mentioned, that there is relief again&s;t its rigour and cur&s;e, but what promi&s;e? that is, or how it &s;hould relieve men under a Covenant of Works, the Doctor tells us not, nor I &s;uppo&s;e never can, if he had never &s;o great a mind to doe it; for the Covenant of works will allow no other nor better promi&s;e then that named by him&s;elf; the man that doth the&s;e things &s;hall live in them.</P>
<P>Secondly, and then he hath other exceptions again&s;t his own Doctrine: as that [the Church of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> was not wholly or ab&s;olutely under it] what the Doctor intends by the&s;e expre&s;&s;i|ons is not certain, for he hath the gift to run along with new
<PB N="15" REF="10"> Notions, and large di&s;cour&s;es, that want both explanation and proof, but we mu&s;t gue&s;s at his meaning as we can, and to the be&s;t of my under&s;tanding, he mu&s;t mean that they were under part of the old Covenant, but not under the whole of it, or el&s;e that they were partly under the Old Covenant, and partly under the new. But let him mean which he will, and what he will, &s;uch a party-coloured doctrine the &s;cripture knows not, either they were under the Law or under Grace; God hath not two ways to ju&s;tifie and &s;ave one and the &s;ame per&s;on or people, <HI>Rom.</HI> 11.6. if of grace, then not of works, but if of works, then not of grace; the&s;e two Covenants will yoak together in this matter, much wor&s;e then on Ox and an A&s;s, but if he thinks that the&s;e &s;ayings of his have any truth in them, he &s;hall do well to help us in his next book, and <HI>I</HI> would intreat him not to forget to an&s;wer this que&s;tion, how and by what means the Church of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> came by Relief again&s;t the Old Covenant, if they were under it, in whole or in part, whether they had it by vertue of Redemption by Chri&s;t, or without it; if by the means of Redemption, how unlike a Chri&s;tian Dr. doth he write, let all men judge, that they &s;hould be redeemed, and yet remain, and that by Gods de&s;ign under a Covenant of works for all that? If without Redemption they obtained that Relief, then what &s;hould hinder but that all other ages might obtain the &s;ame without Redemption, and then to what u&s;e will he put the blood of Chri&s;t?</P>
<P>But thirdly, if the matter and manner of Admini&s;tration, Pro|mi&s;es, and threatnings of the Scripture of the Old Te&s;tament be the &s;ame with the Covenant of works, then how comes it to pa&s;s that there is &s;o much gracious acceptance of &s;inners, and par|don of &s;in expre&s;t therein? or how &s;hall the two Covenants be di&s;tingui&s;hed, they be &s;o like one another? it is to be feared, that if &s;uch Doctrine as this pa&s;s for current, this poor ge|neration will be cheated of their Saviour ere long; for if by ver|tue of the old Covenant &s;o much happine&s;s can be injoyed, there will be no great nece&s;&s;ity of the new Covenant, or of the Medi|ators blood through which it only was made: But if the&s;e be the grounds upon which the Dr. erecteth his new Sabbath, ble&s;&s;ed is he that keepeth it not; for how lamely &s;oever he pre&s;&s;eth the Old Covenant upon them, and would flatter them with &s;ome re|lief again&s;t its rigour; yet he confe&s;&s;eth it begetteth that frame
<PB N="16" REF="11"> of &s;pirit that &s;tands in direct Oppo&s;ition to the freedom and li|berty purcha&s;ed by Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and &s;o by a true interpretation would make us believe they were not redeemed, for if they be, what &s;hould hinder that they &s;hould not be heirs of the &s;ame Co|venant of grace, to beget as good a frame of &s;pirit in them as the Doctor him&s;elf hath? but I fear he thinks his pen is as much at liberty as &s;ome men think their tongues, or el&s;e he would never let it run &s;o at randome as he doth; for there is of that race that under&s;tood the nature of the Covenant God made with them as well as the Doctor doth who were as free from a &s;pi|rit of bondage as he is; and if he &s;hould offer to compare with them for eminency in grace I &s;hould take him for a proud man, but &s;trange it is that a Dr. of his Learning and parts &s;hould be igno|rant that it is reckoned by that great Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul,</HI> the great Privi|ledge of the Gentiles, to be fellow heirs, and of the &s;ame body, and partakers of the &s;ame promi&s;e in Chri&s;t with them, <HI>Eph.</HI> 3.6. Note al&s;o, the context in the chap. before.</P>
<P>But fourthly, if the Doctors book &s;hould fall into the hands of the Jews, how can he chu&s;e but think he inforceth them to &s;corn the Chri&s;tian Religion, can they ever believe that God hath a greater kindne&s;s for the Gentiles then he had for the &s;eed of <HI>Abraham,</HI> he mu&s;t make them very fools before they will en|tertain that &s;tory.</P>
<P>Again, with how high a hand d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">th he e&s;tabli&s;h them in their unbelief; for they &s;ay and believe that the Covenant their Fa|thers and them&s;elves are under, is a Covenant of works, and that it afforded them promi&s;es and mercy, and that they have acceptance and pardon upon, and for offer<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ng &s;acrifice, and doing &s;uch things as the book of the book of the Law requireth; now the Dr. for &s;ub&s;tance &s;aith, the &s;ame thing in terms plain enough in tho&s;e three pages la&s;t named, and when they &s;hall get &s;uch a Te&s;timony for their bad and unbelieving principles, from a pro|fe&s;&s;ed Chri&s;tian Doctor of &s;o great fame, Oh how will they ble&s;s them&s;elves; for it is well known that the ground of their reje|cting the Lord Je&s;us, is their not believing that great truth of the Go&s;pel, namely, that the old Covenant, &s;ince it was broken by &s;in, will not &s;ave any &s;inner, but that God might be ju&s;t in &s;hewing mercy to &s;inners, 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 promi&s;es, (as the Scrip|ture phra&s;eth it) then the fir&s;t had, this if you could per&s;wade
<PB N="17" REF="11"> them of the truth of, and that all the grace and kindne&s;s that they and their Fathers injoyed, came this way, as indeed the truth is, they would &s;oon believe in Je&s;us Chri&s;t, for they look not for a Me&s;&s;ish more holy, nor one that &s;hall confirm his Do|ctrine by more or greater miracles, or any more excellent qua|lification then he had, bin their alone quarrel again&s;t him, is for pretending to die for the forgivene&s;s of &s;ins, and to open a door of &s;alvation; a work they conceive they needed him not for, but only to &s;et them in a Kingdom &s;tate in this world: now if the Dr. had &s;tudied their hardening in unbelief (as God forbid I &s;hould think he did intentionally) yet if he had, he could never have taken a more mi&s;chievous cour&s;e to effect his de&s;ign, then to tell the Jews, the Church of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> &s;tood, or was put under a Covenant of work, by God in the wilderne&s;s of <HI>Sinai,</HI> and that the matter and manner of admini&s;tration and promi&s;e, be the &s;ame with the Covenant of works. The&s;e two conclu&s;ions will roundly and rationally follow, that certainly, if there had been any &s;uch new Covenant that had been better then the Co|venant of Works, it would have been made at that time, or be|fore, that they might not have lo&s;t their &s;hare in it, and to per|&s;wade them again&s;t this conclu&s;ion, is to tell them non-&s;ence for Rea&s;on; for who in his right mind can believe that a people of &s;uch glorious promi&s;es, and partakers of &s;uch &s;ignall-love, &s;hould not &s;tand under a Covenant, as richly advantagious for the Sal|vation of the &s;oul, as ever God intended for any other people in the world.</P>
<P>The &s;econd conclu&s;ion is this, and it runs as clear, that if this great Chri&s;tian Doctor &s;peaks the truth in &s;aying, that the mat|ter and manner of admini&s;tration among the Jews is the &s;ame with the Covenant of works, then can the Chri&s;tian Religion be but a meer cheat; for impo&s;&s;ible it is that it can be a part of the Covenant of Works, if it be what all Chri&s;tian Preachers have pretended it to be hitherto, for they have all pretended till now that the Mo&s;aical Ordinances were &s;hadows of the Body of Chri&s;t, and if they had indeed been appointed to &s;uch a Service, then would they have been of the nature of their Go&s;pel di&s;pen&s;ation, and &s;o would have preached Righteou&s;ne&s;s by grace, through the Mediatours blood, to whom, and to who&s;e death, they pointed, and &s;o could not have been the &s;ame with the Covenant of Works; for if they be &s;o, then they would have been out duty by Crea|tion, although we had not &s;inned nor fallen in <HI>Adam.</HI> Thus
<PB N="18" REF="12"> hath this Doctor contradicted all his Brethren the Apo&s;tles.</P>
<P>And thus may the poor Jews go on triumphing again&s;t the Chri&s;tian Faith and Religion, to the further hardning of them|&s;elves and po&s;terities again&s;t their Saviour, and their own &s;ouls; but I cannot &s;tand to an&s;wer all, nor many of the ab&s;urdities I find in this book, nor yet can I let &s;ome few more of them pa&s;s without &s;ome little examination, page 232. he &s;aith [<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Sabbath or an holy re&s;t belongs unto every Covenant between God and man] to which I &s;ay fir&s;t, how came the Dr. to know this, un|le&s;s &s;ome text in holy writ had told him &s;o; but &s;uppo&s;e I let the Doctor have his &s;aying about his new found Covenant; for I &s;uppo&s;e it is as new to other men, as it is to me; namely, that Covenant of Works that is not ab&s;olutely &s;o, nor &s;o in whole, but Iudaical and Ceremonial, beginning and ending with the Church State of the Iews.</P>
<P>I &s;ay this Covenant, and that which was a Covenant of works ab&s;olutely, and &s;o in whole, both the&s;e C<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">venants although he will have them to have two Sabbaths belonging to them, the one to continue, the other aboli&s;hed at the Death of Chri&s;t, yet he cannot deny but the very &s;elf &s;ame &s;eventh day was the day of Sabbbath to them both; now if that day &s;erved two Covenants turns, wherefore may it not &s;erve the third Covenants turn al&s;o? I &s;hould &s;ay if there were &s;o many, for indeed I never under&s;tood more Covenants then that of works, and that of grace. To which all other Covenants mentioned in Scripture do referr, or are bran|ches or fruits of it. That which he pretends was made with <HI>I&s;|rael,</HI> can be no other but one of his inventions, but, here it is po&s;|&s;ible the Dr. may &s;tumble and mi&s;s his way, that becau&s;e God brought <HI>I&s;rael</HI> by a &s;olemn agreement or Covenant to &s;ubmit to his will, and calls el&s;ewhere, the ten Commands, the fir&s;t Cove|nant, and the old Covenant, he therefore concludes that God made a Covenant of works with them, impo&s;ing tho&s;e hard terms he &s;peaks of upon them; the man that doth the&s;e things &s;hall live in them, and cur&s;ed is he that continues not in all things written in the Law to doe them; el&s;e I cannot &s;ee how he comes to run into all tho&s;e extravagancies with which his book abounds; but although that great my&s;tery may require a vollume by it &s;elf (which I am not without thoughts of) yet thus much I &s;hall &s;ay here, that no &s;uch Covenant was intended by the Lord to yoke that his dear people appears plain enough, <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.5, in the&s;e
<PB N="19" REF="12"> words <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> de&s;cribeth the righteou&s;ne&s;s which is of the Law, that the man that doth tho&s;e things &s;hall live in them.</P>
<P>From which place it is evident, that God expected no &s;uch le|gall obedience from them, for <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> is but here &s;aid to de&s;cribe the Laws righteou&s;ne&s;s, and to let the Jews know, or any that were polluted with their principles, that if they would have Righteou&s;ne&s;s by the Law, they mu&s;t have it upon tho&s;e impo&s;&s;i|ble terms, as al&s;o to let them know upon what terms the world &s;tood; in the day of innocency, the Chief de&s;ign being to put men upon &s;eeking righteou&s;ne&s;s by Chri&s;t, as appears by the words before, and that Evangelical obedience only was the utmo&s;t God expected at their hands, &s;ee the words following: but the righteou&s;ne&s;s of Faith &s;peaketh on this wi&s;e, 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 rea&s;onable under&s;tand|ing, may &s;ee that God required no other obedience from them, but the obedience of faith; to the which they were graciou&s;ly in|abled by the mediation of Chri&s;t, that &s;hall but compare, <HI>Rom.</HI> 10. <HI>Deut.</HI> 30. now for the Scripture calling this Law the old Covenant, it is unrea&s;onable to &s;uppo&s;e it &s;o, from its being de|clared at <HI>Sinai,</HI> but from its being given to <HI>Adam</HI> in innocency; for this &s;ee the Synods large Catechi&s;me, where it is proved with g<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">eat authority.</P>
<P>One thing more from this part of the Book I &s;hall note, and that is, the Doctors great mi&s;take of <HI>Pauls</HI> &s;en&s;e of <HI>Gal.</HI> 4.24. his &s;en&s;e is that of Gods Law by his de&s;ign, or the Laws tend|ancy, genders to bondage; whereas it is evident from the &s;cope of the place, that it is the tru&s;ting to the works of the Law for righteou&s;ne&s;s that genders to bondage, through mens errour and corruption, perverting the mind and councel of God in tru&s;ting to the Law, for that help which it could not relieve them with|all; and &s;o I &s;hall come to con&s;ider how well the Dr. performeth his promi&s;es in the beginning of his Book, pag. 24. he &s;aith [that the day of Sabbath is now in&s;tituted under the New Te&s;tament] an in&s;titution all men know is an appointment from God, or &s;ome one or other by his authority. This if the Dr. perform, I will promi&s;e conformity if the Lord will, for he is &s;o fair as to pro|mi&s;e to proceed in his proof by expre&s;s te&s;timonies of Scripture, and without the light thereof, he &s;aith, we had better &s;et &s;till: al|&s;o page 16. he would not have men think their opinions firm
<PB N="20" REF="13"> and e&s;tabli&s;hed upon the &s;eeming countenance of two or three doubtful Texts, and therefore in the 18 page pre&s;&s;eth the ex|erci&s;e and be&s;t improvement of the u&s;e of our Rea&s;ons, to judge of the clearne&s;s of the proof by &s;cripture te&s;timonys. Now here is as much ingenuity in the&s;e acknowledgments and promi&s;es, as can be de&s;ired, and if the performance be but according, there is no rea&s;on but to &s;ub&s;cribe.</P>
<P>My intention is therefore in the reading of the&s;e two la&s;t exer|citations, to &s;ay little to &s;ome di&s;cour&s;es that I meet with, but carefully to mind what is brought of clear and expre&s;s te&s;timony from Scripture for his fir&s;t day &s;abbath, knowing how little the Drs. own words have &s;ignified in his four fir&s;t exercitations, al|though 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 free|ly confe&s;s to his prai&s;e, that when his concern lay to convince the men that are for no Sabbath, he proves the &s;eventh day &s;abbath &s;ub&s;tantially from the Scriptures that will bear it &s;o, that I need not &s;ay any thing more then he hath &s;aid for me, having no o|ther but our Scripture weapons to defend him&s;elf again&s;t them; but when he takes up arms again&s;t us, then we have words enough of his own, if that would &s;erve the turn; but if in the reading of the&s;e 255 pages, <HI>I</HI> had found but one line of Gods words that had proved the fir&s;t day the &s;abbath, either a changed &s;abbath from the &s;eventh day, or a new in&s;tituted &s;abbath (for there is great difference between the&s;e two) it would have &s;atisfied me, but to find &s;uch a multitude of Notions without proof, when proof was &s;o needful, and when every notion wherewith he would per&s;wade his Reader to believe the fir&s;t day is of divine in&s;titution, 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 trea&s;ures of it unto the world. And now to his fifth exercitation, the which I find for the mo&s;t part of it filled with new inventions, I &s;hall 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 &s;o indeed [that his Lords day hath an in&s;titution in the New Te&s;tament, and that on this day of his Re&s;urrection he began and fini&s;hed the new Creation of Heaven and Earth, and that then all the Starrs &s;ang together, and all the Sons of God &s;houted for joy] the&s;e three
<PB N="21" REF="13"> &s;trange &s;tories will never be proved, if he &s;hould write as many Books to doe it, as a Porter can carry. But the fourth is wor&s;e then his fellows, for he affirmeth: (if that be but a &s;ufficient proof) that with the in&s;titution of his new Sabbath came in a new law, and the new covenant of grace, the very naming of the&s;e things is enough to reprove them; what is become of the na|tural Moral Law now? that is perpetual indi&s;pen&s;ible, and uni|ver&s;al, but this is the fruit of writing great books about matters unwritten; I mean in holy Scripture, they u&s;e 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 &s;hould put it upon that text, <HI>Heb.</HI> 7.12. which &s;peaks of the difference between <HI>Melchi&s;edeck's</HI> Prie&s;thood and <HI>Levie's,</HI> which would be impertinent to this bu&s;ine&s;s, but then he &s;aith, came in the Covenant of Grace, and Law of Faith, for|getting what is written in <HI>Heb.</HI> 11. <HI>chap.</HI> and <HI>Rom.</HI> 4. <HI>chap.</HI> and <HI>Gal.</HI> 3. <HI>chap.</HI> with much more if needs were, but a woful thing it is to hear &s;uch Doctrine from a Doctor of Divinity, for no|thing is more certain then this, that there is no &s;alvation by the Covenant of works, except we can be &s;aved without ju&s;tification, &s;ee <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.20. but I forbear naming Texts, becau&s;e it is the te|nour of the Go&s;pel; and therefore if the new Covenant of Grace entred not till the Re&s;urrection of Chri&s;t, <HI>Adam</HI> and his whole po&s;terity that dyed before his Re&s;urrection are eternal|ly peri&s;hed without any remedy.</P>
<P>The&s;e Shipwracking Doctrines this man hath run into, to father that humane invention of his fir&s;t days Sabbath upon Je|&s;us Chri&s;t. For, right or wrong, upon him he Fathers it, as a proper Go&s;pel new Covenant Sabbath, which he &s;aith, [the Church could not pa&s;s one week without] pag. 365. but I have two con&s;iderations to lay before him, before we can agree. The fir&s;t is, how he can prove it is po&s;&s;ible that the In&s;titution of this Go&s;pel Sabbath mu&s;t be before the week was pa&s;&s;ed, unle&s;s it had been In&s;tituted upon the fir&s;t fir&s;t day of the week that Chri&s;t was ri&s;en, but on that fir&s;t 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 &s;o large a confu&s;ion from the 20. chap. of <HI>John.</HI> Yet manife&s;t it is that the day there mentioned, was the &s;ame day, <HI>Luke</HI> in his 24. chap. gives an account of the two di&s;|ciples
<PB N="22" REF="14"> travelling to <HI>Emaos,</HI> and Chri&s;t with them, and came back that evening, which going and coming was fifteen miles, and came to an a&s;&s;embly of his Di&s;ciples met in the night following that fir&s;t day, which the Doctor pretends was in&s;tituted a Go&s;pel Sabbath, one of his vain inventions; for it is evident that the two di&s;ciples did not believe he was ri&s;en till the fir&s;t day &s;up|per time; nor the a&s;&s;embly of his Di&s;ciples till the night follow|ing that fir&s;t day; nor is there one word recorded out of Chri&s;ts mouth about keeping it then, nor at any other time, nor could the next fir&s;t day be the in&s;tituted &s;abbath, for although the Dr. takes the liberty to &s;ay our Saviour left <HI>Thomas</HI> under his doubts till the next fir&s;t day, that in the pre&s;ence of his Di&s;ciples he might convince him; Yet with his leave the Text &s;aith, after eight days, <HI>John</HI> 20.26. and this fir&s;t appearance was upon the &s;econd day of the week, therefore he is an ill reckoner of the times if he bring it back to the &s;econd fir&s;t day after his Re&s;ur|rection: but this is a &s;mall fault with him, &s;o that the time he &s;aith, it was in&s;tituted, is manife&s;tly a mi&s;take.</P>
<P>But the &s;econd con&s;ideration I &s;hall lay before him is this, to de&s;ire him to help us in this great matter. Fir&s;t, how we &s;hall come to under&s;tand three &s;everal Sabbaths, of a quite differing nature, commanded in the fourth Commandment, one a &s;eventh day &s;abbath, naturally, moral, perpetual, indi&s;pen&s;ible, univer|&s;al, the Law af our creation commanded in the day of innocen|cy, when it could have no eye to the mediation of Je&s;us Chri&s;t. Another the &s;eventh day preci&s;ely, commen&s;urate to the Church-State of the Jews, and to begin and end with it. <HI>A</HI> third com|men&s;urate to the Covenant of grace, and of a quite differing na|ture from both the other, which was not to take place in the world, nor to be ob&s;erved till the Re&s;urrection of Chri&s;t. The&s;e are of great concernment to be cleared, which this book hath not done, although it hath a&s;&s;erted them; for they are a piece of a very new and deep Divinity, or el&s;e a very deep pit to &s;nare poor ignorant &s;ouls, but be&s;ides, how this Go&s;pel-Sab|bath he talks of, if there were &s;uch an one, &s;hould come to eat up that paradice in&s;titution of the &s;eventh day &s;abbath &s;anctified, then when all things were very good, and could not po&s;&s;ibly be appointed with re&s;pect to the Go&s;pel di&s;pen&s;ation, or any end the Dr. a&s;&s;igns it to, is meet to be further examined and cleared; for doubtle&s;s it is a miracle altogether as great, as it is for a
<PB N="23" REF="14"> Prie&s;t to make a new Chri&s;t of a piece of bread, but let us now come to con&s;ider of that Text where he layeth the &s;tre&s;s of his in&s;titution of the fir&s;t day &s;abbath, <HI>Heb.</HI> 4.10. for he that is entred into his re&s;t, hath cea&s;ed from his own works, as God did from his. Before I come to examine the Text, I mu&s;t put him in mind of his own good rules, 16, 17, 18. pag. to which good Laws if he had bound him&s;elf, as well as his Antagoni&s;t, he would not have alleadged this Text to prove the fir&s;t days in|&s;titution. For fir&s;t, this Text is too doubtful for a conclu&s;ion of &s;o great importance. Secondly, there is in it no expre&s;sne&s;s of Te&s;timony, and &s;o by his own Law he had better have &s;ate &s;till. Thirdly, no mans rea&s;on but the Drs. own, can under&s;tand this Text as the Dr. doth, for him&s;elf confe&s;&s;eth in the &s;ame place, page 377. that generally Expo&s;itors be of another mind. And now to the Text it &s;elf; for him to take upon him to expound the word he in the text to be meant of Chri&s;t, when the ver&s;e before expre&s;ly nameth the people of God, and the ver&s;e following doth the like, but no mention there of Chri&s;t. Secondly, nothing can be more evident then this, that the Chapter treateth of that Glorious re&s;t prepared for the people of God, in another world, which the Unbeliever will fall &s;hort of. But not a &s;ingle word about the fir&s;t day of the week; it is not &s;o much as named there, nor is there any mention of any In&s;titution of a Go&s;pel Sabbath, more nor le&s;s; nor is there any ground for him to &s;uppo&s;e that any &s;uch Go&s;pel Sabbath is needful, for the world had &s;tood by vertue of the Covenant of Grace, almo&s;t 4000. years before the Re&s;urrection of Chri&s;t, and had as true a &s;hare in his Blood and Go&s;pel promi&s;es, as tho&s;e have that came after him, and that live in the world at this day, and no &s;uch new Covenant Sabbath was nece&s;&s;ary then, nor can I &s;ee any rea&s;on wherefore it &s;hould be thought &s;o now by any, but only men of new inventions, and that their &s;tate was a Go&s;pel di&s;pen&s;ation before Chri&s;ts coming, as well as &s;ince. Take one Text in&s;tead of many, in this fourth of the <HI>Heb.</HI> 2 <HI>ver.</HI> For unto us was the Go&s;|pel preached, as well as unto them; words plain enough to prove that a Go&s;pel di&s;pen&s;ation as well as this, but becau&s;e it is to the be&s;t of my knowledge, no learned mans judgment to differ from me in this matter but Mr. <HI>Owen,:</HI> I &s;hall &s;ay no more to it, but give him one rea&s;on more, wherefore his new Sabbath is needle&s;s, or rather di&s;honourable to God, for it cannot be deny|ed,
<PB N="24" REF="15"> but when God gave the Law of the Sabbath, it was holy, ju&s;t, and good, nor can there be any colour, rea&s;on, for its de|generating of it &s;elf; but it mu&s;t be as good a Law now, as when it was fir&s;t made, unle&s;s the &s;in of man have made an alteration. Now can it &s;uit with Scripture, or any wi&s;e and good mens rea|&s;on to believe, that becau&s;e wicked men make void Gods Law, that therefore God joyneth with them, and maketh void his own Law: but if any &s;hould object, that the works of Redemption hath made a nullity of it; I an&s;wer, that is as ab&s;urd as the o|ther. For what &s;en&s;e or po&s;&s;ibility is here in this, that Chri&s;t &s;hould come to redeem us from the cur&s;e of the Law, as the Scripture &s;aith he did, <HI>Gal.</HI> 3.13. and from the obedience of it, al&s;o the&s;e two ends are ab&s;olutely irreconcileable, but if the Dr. &s;hould come in, as a man alone, and &s;ay, that the Law that in|joined the keeping of the Sabbath from the beginning, injoines the keeping of the fir&s;t day &s;abbath (as in &s;ome places of his book &s;eems plainly to be his &s;en&s;e) yet this cannot help him, but ra|ther &s;hews him to be a man that needs no man to contradict him, but he can doe it fa&s;t enough him&s;elf; for manife&s;t it is, that it cannot agree with what he here &s;aith, and in the &s;cope of this fifth exercitation is often a&s;&s;erted, Namely, that his fir&s;t day &s;abbath comes in with the Covenant of grace at the Re&s;urrection of Chri&s;t; and was appointed for the honour of beginning and compleating the new Heavens and new Earth by Chri&s;t, with many like expre&s;&s;ions, quite contrary to what him&s;elf a&s;&s;erted in the former part of his book, concerning the morality of the Sab|bath, as you have read a little before, which, without all con|trover&s;ie was, as hath been &s;aid often, of the &s;ame birth and dig|nity with the re&s;t of the D<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">calogue, and &s;o cannot be of the nature of the go&s;pel, but it mu&s;t 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 go&s;pel Sabbath (if &s;uch an one there were) both &s;tand by one and the &s;ame command in the Decalogue, is below a rational man to believe. Now for his other Text, <HI>Acts</HI> 20. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 16. they have been di&s;charged of the &s;ervice the Dr. would put them to, by my &s;elf, and many other, long &s;ince in my Quaeries to the Mini&s;ters of <HI>London,</HI> and in the appeal to the Parliament; to which I &s;hall add thus much, that all that he can urge from the&s;e Texts, is no ground of a &s;ab|bath, for if they were, the <HI>Thur&s;day</HI> will bear away the Bell
<PB N="25" REF="15"> from the <HI>Sunday;</HI> for on that day at night was the in&s;titution of the Lords Supper, and on that day he a&s;cended to his re&s;t in glo|ry (this is beyond a di&s;pute) but did not re&s;t on the day he ro&s;e, as hath been proved; nor can the Dr. prove the fir&s;t day is na|med, in tho&s;e Texts, the word being one of the Sabbaths, let him ask his Greek Te&s;tament if I lye, and for <HI>Rev.</HI> 1.10. <HI>I</HI> onely &s;ay, if the Scripture had in any place called the fir&s;t day of the week, the Lords day, then that Text mu&s;t have had &s;ome con&s;i|deration. But for him to interpret that Text to be meant of the fir&s;t day of the week, is to beg the que&s;tion; in this part of his book I find him in&s;inuating this leaven into his Readers ear in many pa&s;&s;ages, that the Apo&s;tles and Apo&s;tolical Churches owned and kept the fir&s;t day of the week as a Sabbath, in&s;tead of the &s;eventh day; to which I an&s;wer, that for tho&s;e read in anti|quity, he cannot deceive them, but the mo&s;t that may &s;ee his book, I fear may be too apt to pin their ears to his lips, for who&s;e &s;akes I would have him remember what is written, <HI>Deut.</HI> 27.18. <HI>Cur&s;ed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way,</HI> and there will come a day when all the people &s;hall &s;ay <HI>Amen.</HI> For the truth of this manife&s;tly appears in the &s;econd Book of Dr. <HI>Heylins</HI> Hi&s;tory, to which I &s;hall add the te&s;timony of that learn|ed Scribe, Dr. <HI>Prideaux,</HI> in his book of the Sabbath; who affir|meth, that the fir&s;t day of the week in tho&s;e pure&s;t times, was ne|ver kept as a Sabbath, but the &s;eventh day was kept by them without noi&s;e or &s;cruple; and that all antiquity is &s;o manife&s;t for this, that places need not to be named, with more to the &s;ame purpo&s;e. Al&s;o in the &s;ame book he di&s;&s;wadeth from pre&s;&s;ing any Texts of holy Scripture to prove the fir&s;t day kept by divine au|thority, &s;aying plainly, that if we meet with an Antagoni&s;t that will not be ea&s;ily baffled, there is nothing in the Scripture that will bear it; but indeed it is vain for us to expect that Dr. <HI>Owen</HI> &s;hould deal faithfully with antiquity, when he dealeth &s;o unfaithfully with the Law of God, as in page 399. he affirmeth, that [the &s;eventh day &s;abbath is not direct y nor ab&s;olutely re|quired in the Decalogue] and in&s;tead of offering any proof from Scripture, to &s;hew that he might be allowed by the &s;en&s;e of &s;ome other Text to deal &s;o with the fourth Commandment, he goes on with one quibble upon another, till he would needs put this ab&s;urdity upon his Antagoni&s;t, that in ca&s;e they will not al|low more &s;abbaths in the command then the &s;eventh day, that then we mu&s;t read it, the &s;eventh day is the &s;eventh day; ju&s;t as
<PB N="26" REF="16"> if we mu&s;t be as ab&s;urd as him&s;elf; for what need we read the &s;eventh day the &s;eventh day, &s;o long as God hath warranted and commanded us to read the &s;eventh day the &s;abbath of <HI>Jehovah</HI> 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 &s;hall pre&s;ently &s;ee how he &s;uck's it out of his own fingers by his [is, and his [a] is often repeated a &s;eventh day and a &s;eventh day, is another of his own inventions, for there is no &s;uch a &s;eventh day in Gods word, and therefore &s;o oft as he hath u&s;ed it he hath prophaned Gods word, and &s;o his holy name and will, ill an&s;wer it one day unle&s;s he repent. So likewi&s;e for his <HI>is,</HI> it is the &s;ame, a meer humane invention, there is no &s;uch <HI>is</HI> in the Commandment, as the &s;eventh day is the &s;abbath, let him leave that out, and read the commandment as it ought to be read, the &s;eventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, giving the &s;ame day both the names, &s;eventh and &s;abbath, as God him&s;elf doth, and then let him &s;ee how many &s;abbaths he can find in the fourth Commandment, more then the preci&s;e &s;eventh day &s;abbath: if he were an ignorant man he were the le&s;s to be blamed for his mi&s;takes; but he may know, <HI>A</HI> and <HI>is</HI> which he hath built his Judaical and new Covenant &s;abbaths upon, are not in the fourth Commandment, and this is the com|mendation of learned <HI>Ain&s;worth,</HI> although he were for the fir&s;t day &s;abbath, as many other good men were, yet this is his honour, that he to favour his private opinion never fal&s;ified the &s;acred text, but tran&s;lates it faithfully, and where he puts in &s;uppliments, he &s;o puts them in, that all men may &s;ee what is in the Hebrew Text, and what not. I &s;hall write what he tran&s;lates, as Gods own words; Remember thou the Sabbath day to &s;an|ct<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">fie it, &s;ix days &s;halt thou labour, and &s;halt do all thy work, but the &s;eventh days &s;abbath to <HI>Jehovah</HI> thy God, thou &s;halt not doe any work. So that let the Doctor read no more then the &s;acred Text hath in it, and he will never find more then one &s;e|venth days &s;abbath, but in his 407 page, he would fright us from Sabbath keeping, by threatning an Impo&s;&s;ibility of Communi|on with them that keep the fir&s;t day, but he may be mi&s;taken, for it may be &s;ome of tho&s;e men that keep the fir&s;t day, may not be &s;o &s;hie of Communion with us as the Dr. is; but if they all &s;hould be of his mind, if they be men of no more skill in preach|ing
<PB N="27" REF="16"> the Go&s;pel, then he hath in handling the Law, the lo&s;s will not be great; but in the next page he &s;eemeth to di&s;courage &s;abbath keeping, from what the &s;abbath keepers hold touching the penalty for breach of it; but all I &s;hall &s;ay to this matter, is, that he that would know our &s;en&s;e herein truly, may &s;ee be&s;t in our own words; my an&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Grantham,</HI> will not only &s;peak for my &s;elf, but al&s;o for the generality of Sabbath keepers in the land, to the be&s;t of my knowledge, which if the Dr. had read be|fore he had printed his book, he would hardly have found any argument thence to di&s;courage Sabbath-keeping, but it were well if the Dr. had told us wherefore he calls that penall Law the cur&s;e of the Law. I would hope he &s;hould have more judgement then to think that bodily puni&s;hment in this world is all the cur&s;e that the tran&s;gre&s;&s;ours of Gods moral Law are like to meet with, or that Chri&s;t came into the world to de&s;troy civil Go|vernment, and to &s;et free from puni&s;hment evil doers, or to trans|form Gods Law into the Dr. knows not what. For, if he have any good meaning, it is hard to under&s;tand it, for in the whole di&s;cour&s;e following, he talks at &s;uch a &s;trange rate, as if &s;ab|bath keeping nece&s;&s;arily brought men under a yoak of bondage, u&s;ing many hard &s;peeches, either again&s;t us, or again&s;t Gods Law; but plainly upon &s;abbath keeping his charge is, which in rea&s;on mu&s;t reflect upon the &s;ervice and work done, and on men only as the doers of it. For he &s;aith, it is a yoak of bon|dage to the per&s;ons and &s;pirits of men, and pretends it unbear|able and again&s;t the mind of Chri&s;t, 409. page. But by the way there &s;hould have been &s;ome clear proof of the&s;e high charges; but this is like to tarry till the Dr. writes another book to prove tho&s;e many a&s;&s;ertions in this that pa&s;s without proof hitherto. And now I &s;hall to the&s;e charges &s;ay, Fir&s;t, this cannot be char|ged on us, our well known principles and doctrine be as purely Evangelicall as the Doctors, for his life, looking for righteou&s;|ne&s;s by the works of the Law, no more then he doth, nor can &s;ee no manner of rea&s;on, wherefore we &s;hould be in any more danger of that &s;nare in keeping the Sabbath, then he is in keep|ing the fir&s;t day; but the charge mu&s;t lye again&s;t the Sabbath it &s;elf. Therefore we mu&s;t &s;earch out the rea&s;on: and in the next page the <HI>Dr.</HI> he gives us &s;uch as he hath, he would make us believe it is at open contradiction with the &s;pirit, rule, and word of the Go&s;pel, and con<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rary to the liberty wherewith Chri&s;t hath made
<PB N="28" REF="17"> us free. To all this I &s;ay, That if this be the nature of the &s;ab|bath to work us &s;uch ruine, how cruelly did God deal with his people <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> to command them a &s;ervice, which &s;et them at odds, both with &s;pirit, go&s;pel, Chri&s;t and all, for we have our liberty in him by vertue of his death. But certain it is, <HI>Nehem.</HI> 9.13, 14. was not of the Doctors mind; for had he took it to be &s;o de&s;tructive to mans happine&s;s, he would never have num|bered it among Gods great mercies to come down upon mount <HI>Sinai,</HI> to make known to them his holy Sabbath, And the Dr. confe&s;&s;eth it was the preci&s;e &s;eventh day &s;abbath that God fit|ted to that Church State, and he fitted them with a witne&s;s, if the Drs. Doctrine be true, to &s;et them at open contradiction with all their great and eternal happine&s;s.</P>
<P>But &s;econdly, it is &s;omething &s;trange me thinks, that Sabbath keeping &s;hould be &s;o dangerous, &s;eeing it is of the &s;ame birth, and hath the &s;ame priviledges with its fellows in the Decalogue: Certainly, if the ten be of one birth and breed, and one of them of &s;o ill a nature, the Dr. had need to con&s;ider whether he hath not opened a gap to Ranti&s;m wider then he will &s;top in ha&s;te.</P>
<P>But thirdly, if &s;abbath keeping have no con&s;i&s;tence with Chri&s;t, his &s;pirit, and Go&s;pel; He that believeth this can never believe that any happine&s;s by Chri&s;t 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 &s;ay they are peri&s;hed, the black|ne&s;s of that may be &s;een without Spectacles; if he &s;ay they might be &s;aved without him, that is as bad, if not wor&s;e, as will ap|pear (if he &s;hould &s;ay it) if he &s;hould &s;ay they might be &s;aved by Chri&s;t, but we cannot. How plainly doth this condemn the de&s;ign of his whole book, for hath it not been his main work hitherto to per&s;wade us the Jews were under a Covenant of works, and had a &s;abbath &s;uted to that di&s;pen&s;ation, And the new Covenant came in at the Re&s;urrection of Chri&s;t, with a Go&s;pel Sabbath &s;uted to this di&s;pen&s;ation. But if he confe&s;s they might be &s;aved by Chri&s;t, then it will roundly follow that he had as true a &s;hare in Chri&s;ts blood as we, and &s;o were as truly un|der the Covenant of grace, for other ways they could not be &s;a|ved by him, and if &s;o, it cannot be denyed but their &s;tate was a Go&s;pel Di&s;pen&s;ation; and if &s;o, then the preci&s;e &s;eventh day &s;abbath &s;uted the Go&s;pel di&s;pen&s;ation very well: and then what is the Drs. book good for?</P>
<PB N="29" REF="17">
<P>Now let us &s;ee how he winds up this di&s;cour&s;e in the 411 pag. there he a&s;&s;erteth the &s;eventh day &s;abbath, (for of that he treat|eth) is a meer precept of the old Law as &s;uch; and what the Law &s;peaks, it &s;peaks to them that are under the Law. To which I &s;ay, I freely confe&s;s it is a precept of the old Law, what will he have out of this, if he &s;peak this to per&s;wade us that becau&s;e it is &s;o, it is truth, and mu&s;t be walked in, as 2 <HI>John</HI> 6. It were like a Mini|&s;ter of the Go&s;pel; but his &s;cope &s;heweth he hath a quite con|trary end, <HI>viz.</HI> to di&s;parage God, Law, becau&s;e it is antient. Nei|ther is there any doubt but the Law &s;peaks to tho&s;e that are under it; but wherefore doth he urge it &s;o perver&s;ly? It is evi|dent the Apo&s;tle, <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.19. urgeth it to prove, that it is all the worlds duty to own its authority and power, to command obe|dience at their hands, and to humble them, and &s;top their mouths before God, becau&s;e they have no better obeyed it; but this Dr. hath a quite contrary de&s;ign, he aims to get from under its do|minion, and becau&s;e it is &s;evere over the &s;oul and con&s;cience of tho&s;e that are under it, therefore he talks of extricating him&s;elf and tho&s;e he can per&s;wade to follow him from under its power and authority. A braive bait for the fle&s;h I confe&s;s, if it were but as &s;afe a way to the Crown, there were no cour&s;e like it, but lea&s;t any &s;hould think I wrong him, take him in his own words, [in all its precepts, it exerci&s;eth a &s;evere dominion over the &s;ouls and con&s;ciences of them that are under it, and we have no way to extricate our &s;elves from under that dominion, but by our be|ing dead unto its power and authority as &s;uch, through the death of Chri&s;t] Now let us examine the drift of this di&s;cour&s;e, and fir&s;t to the fir&s;t words of it. In all its precepts it exerci&s;eth a &s;e|vere dominion; here we are to note his quarrell in the fir&s;t place is with the &s;abbath, but it &s;eems not with that only, but with all the precepts of the Decalogue, and wherefore could he not have told us &s;o at fir&s;t, but to lead us along with &s;trange &s;tories, fir&s;t, of a Moral Sabbath, then of a Judaical Sabbath, then la&s;t|ly of a Go&s;pel Sabbath, never heard on in the world before; with this riddle, that the fourth command is the root of them all, although the la&s;t be of a Go&s;pel nature, pertaining to the Co|venant of grace; and when all comes to all, the bu&s;ine&s;s is this, that all the precepts of the morall Law are too &s;treight a yoak for the Drs. neck; and let us con&s;ider his rea&s;on for it, and that is ex|pre&s;t in the&s;e words. Over the &s;ouls and con&s;ciences of tho&s;e that
<PB N="30" REF="18"> are under it, Mark this rea&s;on well: men that &s;ometimes &s;teer the cour&s;e of error with a high hand, yet the truth will drop out of their mouths &s;ometimes again&s;t their wills, for by the rule of his own rea&s;on, here &s;ome are under it, and that it hath &s;o ju&s;t an authority over them, that it binds their &s;ouls and con&s;ciences unto obedience, for nothing can bind the con&s;cience but ju&s;t au|thority; now if ju&s;t power bind the con&s;ciences of &s;ome, I can|not &s;ee how any can be ju&s;tly di&s;charged of the &s;ame obedience. But then the Dr. tells us, we have no way to deliver our &s;elves from under that dominion, but by being dead unto its power by Chri&s;ts death. Well let this be con&s;idered al&s;o, and by the way, it would be known whether there be any difference between extri|cating the Law it &s;elf, or our &s;elves, from under its authority but let us con&s;ider farther how we do or can become dead to the laws au|thority by the death of Chri&s;t, for as he hath expre&s;t him&s;elf, I am a &s;tranger to the matter, and to the be&s;t of my knowledge the Scrip|ture is &s;o al&s;o; I very well remember the Apo&s;tle, <HI>Rom.</HI> 7.4. tells us, we are become dead to the Law by the body of Chri&s;t, which, if he expound, it is meant of his death, I will allow it him, but he mu&s;t remember that this death to the Law is in order to fruit-bearing unto God, and not to its ju&s;t power and authority in commanding obedience at our hands; Chri&s;t never dyed for a|ny &s;uch unworthy end, therefore let him not &s;lander Chri&s;t whatever he ca&s;ts upon the Sabbath-keepers; but this I &s;hall &s;ay for my brethren as well as for my &s;elf, we are all of us of the Apo&s;tles mind, quite dead to the Law, not having the lea&s;t hope or expectation to bring forth any acceptable fruit unto God by vertue of it, we look not at all to receive grace or &s;trength from the Law, to &s;anctifie us, no more then to ju&s;tifie us. But what then? becau&s;e it will not &s;erve our turns in&s;tead of a Saviour; Mu&s;t it be turned out of all office, and be degraded of its domini|on, power, and authority? So that it &s;hall not bind our con&s;ci|ences to obey it? We have better learned Chri&s;t then &s;o, to make him the mini&s;ter of &s;in. This doctrine of being dead to the authority of the Law, would plea&s;e the <HI>Antinomians,</HI> (the Fa|thers) very well, and the Ranters (their children) as well, but the Sabbath-keepers like it not: But then the Drs. heart mi&s;gi|ving him, as I am apt to think, in this ra&s;h undertaking, to di&s;charge believers of their obedience to Gods Law, upon the account of Chri&s;ts death; &s;eems in his next words rather to put it upon the &s;core of his actual obedience in the&s;e words [or by faith
<PB N="31" REF="18"> in the benefits, that through his fulfilling and &s;atisfying the Law, doe redound unto the Church] To all which, I &s;ay, I have heard the actual obedienee of Chri&s;t abu&s;ed enough before now, but I never heard any man &s;ay before, that Chri&s;ts obedience to Gods law &s;hould di&s;charge the Church from her obedience thereunto. But the Lord deliver me from being a member of that Church, that makes no con&s;cience of keeping the ten commandments. But a pa&s;&s;age or two more I &s;hall note. Among other un&s;avoury &s;entences this is one [doe men appeal to the Law, to the Law they mu&s;t go] ju&s;t as if there were no po&s;&s;ibility of yielding any Evangelicall obedience to the Law, but that it mu&s;t be kept for to obtain righteou&s;ne&s;s or ju&s;tification, or not keep it at all; but he proceeds. [Its a meer legall duty, properly &s;o called, and in a bondage frame of &s;pirit without any e&s;peciall a&s;&s;i&s;tance of grace it mu&s;t be performed] who would think that &s;uch words came from a Dr. of Divinity, how much le&s;s from him who hath a&s;&s;er|ted in the beginning of his book, the natural, morality, indi&s;pen|&s;iblene&s;s, and univer&s;ality of obedience due to this very Law, that he now thus brandeth with the Characters of legal and bon|dage, and threatneth men that they &s;hall have no e&s;pecial a&s;|&s;i&s;tance of grace to perform it. But that which is wor&s;t of all is, that he Fathers this Doctrine upon &s;ome author or other, under the name of our Apo&s;tle (which men that read not, nor heed not the Scriptures, may think he means &s;ome Apo&s;tle of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, but &s;uch Doctrine as this I am well &s;atisfied never came from any Apo&s;tle, except from &s;ome one or other &s;ent forth from the City of Athei&s;me. The la&s;t exercitation of his book) if it con|cern'd the Sabbath, or that it were directions for the right ob&s;er|vation of it, I could not well agree with the Dr. in all things: but &s;eeing it is a day of humane in&s;titution, humane directions, about the manner of its ob&s;ervation, may well &s;erve the turn. And &s;o much for this controver&s;ie at this time, the third moneth called <HI>May</HI> 24. 1671.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="postscript">
<PB N="32" REF="19">
<HEAD><HI>A POSTSCRIPT.</HI> By way of an Appendix, in a Brief an&s;wer to a late Book written by Mr. <HI>Richard Baxter,</HI> upon the &s;ame Subject.</HEAD>
<P>I See I am called in this evil day to a difficult work (namely, the defence of Gods holy Law of the ten Precepts, <HI>Exod.</HI> 20.) which is not &s;o in it &s;elf, no nor yet is it difficult for want of a cloud of witne&s;&s;es that have gone before, giving great light to the perpetual continuance of this Law, as a rule of life to all men; but it is only made difficult through the manifold and mi&s;chievous inventions of men, that would break this Golden Chain, to rob it of that &s;acred day which God him&s;elf hath &s;an|ctified, and mo&s;t &s;olemnly commanded for his Wor&s;hip, every one bringing forth of his bad trea&s;ure new inventions again&s;t it, and all wor&s;e and wor&s;e: and among the many oppo&s;ites it hath had of late, I have yet &s;een none that have matched Mr. <HI>Baxters;</HI> &s;hooting &s;uch bolts as I neuer expected would flie out of any Prote&s;tants Bow: Now indeed I do not judge it worth my precious time, to trace this man by a particular an&s;wer to all the parts of his book, but the mo&s;t I intend is to deal with him where his &s;trength lies, in his &s;eventh chap. yet <HI>I</HI> mu&s;t give the Reader to take notice of Mr. <HI>Baxters</HI> Wiles, the bu&s;ine&s;s he hath to do is to prove the ce&s;&s;ation of the &s;eventh day &s;abbath, as appears pag. 1. a work impo&s;&s;ible for him to do, either by Scripture, or antiquity, if antiquity were as con&s;iderable as he would make it. <HI>Antiquity may pa&s;s for a proof of what the cu&s;tom of the Churches then was; but it is notorious Popery to urge it as a proof of what ought to be.</HI> And yet Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> con|fe&s;&s;eth in his Preface, the &s;tre&s;s of the matter lieth here: and per|&s;wades his Reader, that the Chri&s;tian Churches meeting on the fir&s;t day is a &s;ufficient proof, that Chri&s;t in&s;tituted it in&s;tead of the Sabbath, and then draws this bold conclu&s;ion, that the ce&s;|&s;ation of the &s;abbath is proved thereby; but neither of the&s;e is &s;ound Doctrine, the Churches meeting on the fir&s;t day is a &s;illy proof for its in&s;titution by Chri&s;t; for if antient cu&s;tom will go &s;o far, what branch of Popery mu&s;t be rejected? Neither if
<PB N="33" REF="19"> he could prove by twenty Texts of Scripture the fir&s;t days in&s;ti|tution, it will not follow that the Sabbath &s;hould be cea&s;ed ever the more for that; the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e Mr. <HI>Baxter,</HI> and all that plead the fir&s;t days cau&s;e, do it for the honour of the Re|&s;urrection, and compleating the work of Redemption, and &s;uch like pretences, is all their ground for it. Now this can go no further if they had &s;ome Scripture for its in&s;titution, then to prove it an ordinance of the Go&s;pel, &s;uch as baptizme and the Lords Supper is, but no Law from the fourth commandment, for that was not ordained to &s;et forth Chri&s;t crucified; but to comme|morate the creation of the world: But let us examine this mans proceedings, and this title he fixeth to his fir&s;t <HI>chap</HI> [the Divine appointment of the Lo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ds day proved as a &s;eparated day for ho|ly wor&s;hip, e&s;pecially in the Church a&s;&s;emblies] where note, fir&s;t though the title promi&s;es a proof of the fir&s;t days being of Di|vine appointment, yet there is not one Word or Text of Scrip|ture in all the <HI>chap.</HI> &s;o much as named for proof thereof, but this is delayed, till the text can be found that a&s;&s;erteth it, which is not like to be till we have &s;ome new Scriptures written. Secondly, you may note the lamene&s;s of that expre&s;&s;ion [a &s;eparated day for holy wor&s;hip, e&s;pecially in the Church a&s;&s;emblies] you may well &s;ee by this pa&s;&s;age how true the Te&s;timonies are of Dr. <HI>Pri|deaux,</HI> Dr. <HI>Heylin,</HI> and Dr. <HI>Iron&s;ide,</HI> who all agree, that the fir&s;t day called <HI>Sunday</HI> was never kept holy by the antient Churches, nor no re&s;traint from labour nor recreation, but Church a&s;&s;em|blies only kept up, and to work again. See Dr. <HI>Heylins</HI> book of the Sabbath, &amp;c. what I have noted out of it in my an&s;wer to Dr. <HI>Owen,</HI> nor can I find that it was ever better kept in the pri|mitive time then <HI>Wedne&s;days</HI> and <HI>Fridays,</HI> but all kept alike till of late years, and although neither of the three Drs. were &s;ab|bath-keepers, nor intended it the lea&s;t &s;ervice: yet it is plain to all unbya&s;&s;ed men that &s;hall read their books, that the primitive Churches kept the &s;abbath for &s;ome hundreds of years: See more of this in my an&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Grantham</HI> al&s;o; for I am not willing to write over tho&s;e things again; &s;ee al&s;o Dr. <HI>Prideaux</HI> te&s;timo|ny in the Rams horn &s;ounding how expre&s;s it is: and Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> knowing the truth of the&s;e things doubtle&s;s to &s;ave his credit, ex|pre&s;&s;eth this &s;o often e&s;pecially in Church A&s;&s;emblies, that if any read in antiquity &s;hould rebuke him for fal&s;e flying antiquity, and tell him that for &s;ome hundreds of years it was left as free
<PB N="34" REF="20"> for field husbandry and all manner of labour as the other days of the week were, he might have this creeping hole to &s;ave him&s;elf, and &s;ay, he often expre&s;t it was kept holy in Church a&s;&s;emblies; but is it not a mi&s;erable thing to con&s;ider that a Preacher of the Go&s;pel &s;hould carry it at &s;uch a rate to deceive the ignorant, to write &s;o as at lea&s;t to make them think the fir&s;t day was kept holy from the very days of the Apo&s;tles, though him&s;elf knows the contrary; And,</P>
<P>For his &s;econd Chapter, that Chri&s;t commi&s;&s;ioned his Apo|&s;tles, he might have &s;aved that labour, for that is no mans doubt. And for his third, that he promi&s;ed them his &s;pirit, it is work as needle&s;s. And for his fourth, that he performed his promi&s;e, might have been &s;pared as well as the re&s;t, here is clear proof for that which needed no proof. But for the fifth chapter that Chri&s;t did actually &s;eparate the fir&s;t day for his wor&s;hip, one text that had &s;aid had been very needful; but this was not to be found in the Scripture, for if it had, it would have &s;erved the turn, and it would have &s;aved him the labour of writing all the re&s;t of his book: and for tho&s;e Texts alleadged by him, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 16. <HI>Acts</HI> 20. <HI>Rev.</HI> 1.10. I refer him to tho&s;e three Doctors before named, for if in his own judgment there had been any Text that would have &s;erved his turn, he would never have exalted tradition as he hath done, nor put &s;uch a whip into the papi&s;ts hands to la&s;h his own back. pag. 52, 53, 54. <HI>But it is worth noting, that where he hath to do with Dr.</HI> Hey|li<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, <HI>who would neither have the Sabbath, nor the fir&s;t day kept holy, there he is nece&s;&s;itated to prove the perpetual ob&s;ervation of a weekly day for Gods wor&s;hip, from Gen</HI> 2 <HI>Exod.</HI> 20. Wh<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ch all men know hath not the lea&s;t &s;h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">w for the fir&s;t day, but for the &s;eventh day only: but to note a pa&s;&s;age or two more ere I leave this <HI>chap.</HI> a|bout the 57, 58, 59, 60. pages, he would bear his Reader in hand with as much confidence as if it were true indeed, that the fir&s;t day was owned as an Apo&s;tolical appointment univer&s;ally in|&s;tead of the &s;abbath, and that there were no di&s;&s;enters; but either he is not &s;o skilful in the knowledge of antiquity as he makes him|&s;elf, or el&s;e he acts with a bad con&s;cience; for if there were not di&s;&s;enters in this change, the Councel of <HI>Laodicea</HI> had never made a law to excommunicate &s;uch as would not work on the Sabbath day, and keep the fir&s;t day; &s;ee Mr. <HI>Brabourn</HI> on the Sabbath, a|gain&s;t the ten Mini&s;ters, pag. 482. and in the 63 page. Mr. <HI>Bax|ter</HI> would make us believe (if God in his mercy did not give us
<PB N="35" REF="20"> more wi&s;dom and grace) that no [&s;ingle ver&s;e or Text of Scrip|ture hath authority without Hi&s;torical Tradition.] But by the way, fir&s;t no Je&s;uite or Roman Prie&s;t could have &s;aid more, nor can there be a fairer foundation laid for Popery and taking away the Scriptures from the Laity. But &s;econdly, tradition, which this mans Fabrick is built upon, agrees not with it &s;elf; the fathers were of different minds, and &s;peak many things darkly, and were failable men as we are, and many of them &s;uper&s;titious e|nough, and no wonder, for it came on apace in <HI>Pauls</HI> time, 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 2.7. their te&s;timony for what is done I do e&s;teem, but to &s;ay or think, that all they did was well done, is wicked, and of no better u&s;e that I know of, but to make provi&s;ion for the Popes Kitchin.</P>
<P>But thirdly, if what Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> &s;aith be true, what is become of the many ten thou&s;ands dead and living that have believed the Scriptures to be a &s;ure guide to direct them to plea&s;e God, but never knew what was contained in Church Hi&s;tory. But if this man be not facing toward <HI>Rome,</HI> yet he cannot well blame them that may have &s;ome fear of him; for in my judgement he gives &s;ome occa&s;ion for &s;uch a jealou&s;ie, but yet I have &s;o much charity for him as to think the nece&s;&s;ity of a bad cau&s;e puts him upon this temptation, For le&s;s it cannot be then a very &s;ore temptation doubtle&s;s to magnifie &s;o high, &s;ome Articles of faith whatever he means by faith or articles, without the knowledge of the Scrip|ture, and makes the Scriptures doubtful without tradition, page 65. I wonder what articles they are that are not grounded on the knowledge of the Scripture, or how the believing &s;uch Articles can be counted faith, or if a man &s;hould doubt of Scripture autho|rity, how human hi&s;tory can remove that doubt: but for the name he hath given the fir&s;t day, frequently calling it the Lords day, I wonder where he found it? for from the fir&s;t and be&s;t anti|quity he had it not, as Dr. <HI>Heylin</HI> witne&s;&s;eth, and from <HI>Rev.</HI> 1.10. he hath in not, for he can never prove from Gods word, that the fir&s;t day of the week is &s;o named; nor is there any good rea&s;on to believe, that in the beginning of the reformation the Godly here in <HI>England</HI> had any &s;uch e&s;teem of it, for if they had I am apt to believe we &s;hould have found it in the Common-Prayer|book; but there they knew it by a more common name, there it is numbred with the Church holy days in the Rubrick by the name of all the Sundays in the year, and that antiquity
<PB N="36" REF="21"> as well as Scripture falls &s;hort of an&s;wering Ma&s;ter <HI>Baxters</HI> de&s;ires, take one note more from the te&s;timony of Dr. <HI>Iron|&s;ide,</HI> who among other pa&s;&s;ages wherein he proveth the fir&s;t day was never kept by divine appointment, in the 222, 223, pages of his book of the Sabbaths he &s;aith thus, <HI>The whole Christian Church in all ages have delivered this for an undoubted truth, and abhorred a Jewi&s;h re&s;ting on the Lords day, and ever accur&s;ed it where they found it,</HI> with more to the &s;ame purpo&s;e; but to prove the fir&s;t days in&s;titution, Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> takes pains to produce from hi&s;tory the&s;e in&s;tances; namely, that we could not know whether bapti&s;m were admini&s;tred in the form of words Chri&s;t commanded, nor with what confe&s;&s;ion of faith members &s;hould be received into Church-Fellow&s;hip, or whether the Lords Prayer were u&s;ed in the words commanded, but for Church Hi&s;tory: and then triumpheth in the&s;e words; [I think now I have fully proved to &s;ober con&s;iderate Chri&s;tians, that the Lords day was appointed by the Apo&s;tles peculiarly for Church Wor&s;hip.] Now indeed it well becomes &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ber men to con&s;ider the congruity of this argument; is it not a worthy proof that the Apo&s;tles appointed the keeping of the fir&s;t day holy, becau&s;e Church hi|&s;tory tells us how they u&s;ed to baptize, receive members, and pray, he that cannot &s;ee &s;ufficiency of proof in this, mu&s;t not believe what Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> &s;aith [to the preamble of the &s;ixth chap. I &s;ay that if Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> had or could prove that the Apo&s;tles had appointed the fir&s;t day to be kept holy, the &s;abbath-keepers would n<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ver have doubted but the &s;pirit of God had guided them therein] his large proof for that is needle&s;s, but one text to prove that ever the Apo&s;tles did appoint it, would have &s;aved him that labour and a great deal more.</P>
<P>But now to the &s;eventh Chapter, where the main work lies, his que&s;tion is, whether the &s;eventh day &s;abbath &s;hould be kept &s;till by Chri&s;tians as of divine obligation: and he an&s;wers negatively; but to his negation I &s;ay his very que&s;tion is a grant at unawares, that it ought to be kept by him&s;elf, if he be a Chri&s;tian, for that which is one Chri&s;tians duty is anothers al&s;o, but he con&s;ents Chri&s;tians were formerly to keep it by divine obligation, or el&s;e what means the word, &s;hould be &s;till kept by Chri&s;tians, if it had never been to be kept by them, he begins this chapter with three promi&s;es, the fir&s;t is this, It's an errour he concludes, &s;uper|&s;titious, trouble&s;ome, and of evill con&s;equence to keep both days,
<PB N="37" REF="21"> again&s;t this I have nothing to &s;ay; the &s;econd is this, that it is le&s;s dangerous to keep both, then to keep none; and to this I only &s;ay, bad is the be&s;t; his third is this, he thinks to keep the &s;e|venth, and neglect the fir&s;t day, is wor&s;t of all; his rea&s;on is, it is to &s;in to reject the right day, and to keep the wrong. To this I &s;ay, fir&s;t, to the fir&s;t part of this &s;urmi&s;e, it is not what Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> thinks, that is our rule to &s;quare our conver&s;ations by, but we know it is Gods holy Word and Law that mu&s;t be our guide, and he &s;aith, and we dare believe, &s;ix days &s;halt thou labour and do all thy work, but the &s;eventh day &s;abbath to <HI>Jehovah</HI> thy God, thou &s;halt not doe any work: to keep the &s;eventh day God &s;aith is our duty, Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> &s;aith it is a &s;in. Which mu&s;t we believe? for both cannot &s;peak truth, and I am per&s;waded God cannot lye, but he goes on to deny the &s;eventh day &s;abbath, and argues it at &s;uch a rate as makes my heart to tremble to read it. [That day which we are not obliged to keep by the Law of nature, by the Law po&s;itive given to <HI>Adam,</HI> the law given to <HI>Noah,</HI> the law of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> nor the law of Chri&s;t, that we are not obliged to, and that is the &s;eventh day &s;abbath. Before I come to examine this proof, I would have the un&s;avourine&s;s of his tearms noted, as 1. the Law of Nature; 2. the Law given to <HI>Adam;</HI> 3. the Law gi|ven to <HI>Noah;</HI> 4. the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es;</HI> 5. the Law of Chri&s;t. What would Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> have the ignorant gather out of all the&s;e di|&s;tinctions of laws left without explanation? is it not ea&s;ie to ga|ther that there is five &s;orts of laws, that in &s;everal ages have born rule in the world: and that which is the law to one age or &s;ort of men, is not a law to another; and can any man think that le&s;s then <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">his lies in his own conceit, and the&s;e laws of a quite con|trary nature one to another; rendring God as &s;illy and changea|ble, as the weak &s;hallow witted &s;ons of men. Now for tho&s;e two &s;orts of laws he pretends were given to <HI>Adam,</HI> a Law Natural and a Law Po&s;itive, if he had explained him&s;elf to this effect; that when <HI>Adam</HI> had broke the Moral Law, God in mercy to let him know his love in Chri&s;t, gave him the Shadow law by Po&s;itive command, this had been to &s;peak like a man of under&s;tanding; but he &s;peaks of a Po&s;itive moral law, &s;uch as the ten commands, it is evident in the next page, where he confe&s;&s;eth the &s;eventh day to be <HI>Adams</HI> day; and &s;ure he cannot have any place in his head &s;o &s;oft as to think the Sabbath was given as a &s;hadow of the body of Chri&s;t before the fall; nor can any man be &s;o &s;illy as to think
<PB N="38" REF="22"> the Sabbath was not &s;anctified in innocency that will confe&s;s it was given to <HI>Adam</HI> at all; &s;eeing the creation of man was the la&s;t work God did before he &s;anctified it; and the Scriptures de|clare that all things were very good when he did it, <HI>Gen.</HI> 1.31. <HI>Gen.</HI> 2, 1, 1, 3. and wherefore he &s;hould dream <HI>Noah</HI> had another Law given him, and not that which was given to <HI>Adam</HI> no Text or rea&s;on is given, nor none to be found in the Scripture; nor will he be able to prove with &s;even years &s;tudy, that <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and Chri&s;t had any laws of their own, or that there ever was or will be any more then one and the &s;ame law to all the world, if he &s;peak of moral laws to govern the conver&s;ations of men in godline&s;s and righteou&s;ne&s;s, &s;uch as the ten commandements be; but what I might further &s;ay to this Scripture-de&s;troying argument will fall in, in the examination of his proof he brings for it. Now to the fir&s;t, that the law of nature bindeth not to it, this is his proof. 1. In the nature and rea&s;on of the thing, nature will not evidence it to be Gods will; to this I an&s;wer, how comes he to be wi&s;er then God? God brings rea&s;on from nature, to teach and convince us of our duty to keep the &s;eventh day &s;abbath, <HI>Exod.</HI> 20.9, 10, 11. he there &s;ets his own example both in working and re&s;ting be|fore us to follow, and tell us what his work was; namely he made us and the world, and all things in it for our &s;akes, and &s;anctified the &s;abbath for us likewi&s;e; for it was made by him for man or for <HI>Adam,</HI> as the word imports, <HI>Mark</HI> 2.27. now &s;tronger natural rea&s;on, more convincing and obl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ging to a duty I no where find; and the&s;e rea&s;ons are the &s;ame to all men and times &s;o long as the Sun and Moon endures. And if mans own being, and the whole frame of nature be no natural rea&s;on to teach and per|&s;wade us to our duty, with Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> I &s;hall leave him as an unrea&s;onable man. Natures voice cries loud enough for this commandment, to all that have rea&s;on and will u&s;e it; but he goes on and tells us, no man finds him&s;elf convinc'd of this duty by mere nature, but to this I &s;ay nature preacheth this law, a duty as clear|ly as any law, except the fir&s;t command, the book of nature, I mean his glorious works of creation and providence do prove there is a God beyond controule; &s;o likewi&s;e they do as truly declare that the &s;ea&s;on he &s;anctified to commemorate this work, is mo&s;t meet for his &s;olemn Wor&s;hip of any day in the week; but &s;ure he hath &s;ome other opinion of nature, I am apt to think el&s;e he would never deny the Sabbath to be a natural moral law, but I
<PB N="39" REF="22"> fear he thinks that the corrupt heart and blind mind of &s;orry fal|len man, &s;hould find out this duty without any other help, if it were the will of God it &s;hould be now kept, but if this be the thing he calls nature and reckons it a guide to find out Gods law; I do not wonder at his oppo&s;ition to the Sabbath, nor at any er|rour that he &s;hall receive, be it never &s;o gro&s;s. What may not come in at this door, the doctrine of the purity of nature without blemi&s;h? for if it be polluted, it mu&s;t be in the under&s;tanding as much as in any thing, but polluted it cannot be, if it can find out its duty in all natural morals. For further, there is no rea&s;on to believe it could ever &s;ee, and free-will is and mu&s;t needs be <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">he top bough of this tree; but let it be once admitted of, and then both <HI>Quakers</HI> and <HI>Ranters</HI> will rej<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">yce over it, and I am apt to think it will be found to bear very hard upon &s;ome principles, that may de&s;erve rebuke from his brethren, but I am in &s;ome things willing to forbear him, to &s;ee whether all his brethren have &s;o great a quarrel again&s;t the Sabbath, &s;o as to root it out, and care not how Religion and the Scriptures &s;uffer thereby. But I de&s;ire him and all m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n to con&s;ider, whether this plea for Sabbath-breaking will not altogether &s;erve to excu&s;e the <HI>Papists</HI> in breaking the &s;e|cond Commandement every whit as well.</P>
<P>Now to the next head in his Argument, there he fir&s;t denieth the po&s;itive Law given to <HI>Adam</HI> before or after the fall, or to <HI>Noah,</HI> bindeth us to this duty; his rea&s;on is, becau&s;e, &s;aith he, we are under a more perfect Law; what he means by the Laws given to <HI>Adam</HI> and <HI>Noah</HI> after the fall, I do not know, nor is it material to this bu&s;ine&s;s; but for the Law made to <HI>Adam</HI> be|fore the fall, Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> is the fir&s;t man that I ever knew deny that to be all the worlds duty, the Synod of Divines in the Book entitu|led, <HI>Articles of Religion,</HI> Printed 1648. have &s;o fully proved the truth of what he denies, that I need &s;ay no more, but that it is his great &s;hame to gain&s;ay &s;o learned and godly an A&s;&s;embly, with|out taking off the weight of their large proof, but he goes again&s;t the known judgement of all godly Writers, Dr. <HI>Owen</HI> and all, and leaves no bu&s;ine&s;s for Chri&s;t to do in the world for that &s;ort of men at lea&s;t that are not bound by that Law given in innocency; but his rea&s;on of this denial is as bad as the denial it &s;elf, for he &s;aith, we are under a more perfect Law, and that more imperfect cea&s;eth. Now Reader, if thou bee&s;t not an Athei&s;t, here is e|nough to open thine eyes to &s;ee the Sabbath thy duty, by the
<PB N="40" REF="23"> light of tho&s;e Arguments brought again&s;t it; thou &s;ee&s;t Mr. <HI>Bax|ters</HI> &s;trength again&s;t it lyes in this grand bla&s;phemy, that Gods Law moral, given to <HI>Adam</HI> before the fall is imperfect, even that Law &s;o magnified for its perfection in the Scriptures, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 19.9, 10, 11. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 119. from end to end, of which it is &s;aid, that it was ordained for life, <HI>Rom.</HI> 7.10. which cannot import le&s;s, than that it would have perpetuated the life of the world to eternity, in the &s;ame happine&s;s in which it was created, if it had been kept by them; and although we are grown wor&s;e, yet the Law retains its perfection, as appears, <HI>Lev.</HI> 18.5 <HI>Ezek.</HI> 20.13, 21. <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.5. <HI>Gal.</HI> 3.12. Now he that can take the boldne&s;s to fly in the face of G<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d him&s;elf, and di&s;parage his perfect Law, what may he not &s;ay, or who can believe him when he may &s;peak truth, or who can excu&s;e him from being one of tho&s;e that have &s;poken hard words again&s;t God, <HI>Jude</HI> 15. If ever any man de&s;erved to be reckoned a blemi&s;h and a &s;candal to the Chri&s;tian profe&s;&s;ion, he may, who &s;aith, that the Law given before the fall is imperfect. But now if any man &s;hould think he may have &s;trength again&s;t the Sabbath, although he have &s;o dreadfully mi&s;s'd it here, I &s;ay for the information of &s;uch, all he hath or could &s;ay in compari&s;on of this, if it could have pa&s;&s;ed for current, had been but like &s;mall &s;hot in a Birding-Peece again&s;t a Ca&s;tle wall, of no &s;ignification with any man of judgement; this Cannon &s;hot would have brought it down, and all the Towers of Religion to boot; he is the har|die&s;t man that ever ventured an encounter again&s;t the Sabbath. But although Dr. <HI>Iron&s;ide</HI> were again&s;t the Sabbath as much as Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> can be, yet he knew this was too high an attempt, and therefore &s;aith <HI>chap.</HI> 3. indeed had it been given to our fir&s;t Parents in Paradi&s;e and &s;tate of innocency, as it mu&s;t univer&s;ally have bound all men, &s;o neither could it have been in any thing ce|remonial relating unto Chri&s;t, and we mu&s;t &s;till have kept that day on which God re&s;ted. And again in the 70th. page he &s;aith, The Sabbath mu&s;t be the &s;ame with the &s;eventh, or el&s;e there is no tolerable &s;ence or congruity in that Law. His &s;econd rea&s;on is, Becau&s;e &s;aith he, the Law or Chri&s;t containeth an expre&s;s revo|cation of the &s;eventh dayes Sabbath; but I &s;ay, it is &s;ad to hear a rea&s;on with never a word of truth in it, for there is not one word in the Scriptures for revoking it, and it is very nece&s;&s;ary that in his next Book he di&s;tingui&s;h between Gods Law and Chri&s;ts Law, if Chri&s;t have any Law of his own, that is none of the Fathers;
<PB N="41" REF="23"> but I am apt to think it is a meer device Satan hath buzz'd into Mr. <HI>Baxters</HI> ears, to lay more &s;tumbling blocks in the way of the <HI>Jews</HI> conver&s;ion: but when he &s;hould prove this &s;trange new fa&s;hioned rea&s;on, he addes (as &s;hall be &s;hewed anon) but that <HI>non</HI> will never come while Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> lives. Again, his third rea&s;on is this, God never required two dayes in &s;even, and the fir&s;t day being proved to be of divine in&s;titution, the ce&s;&s;ation of the &s;eventh is thereby proved. The fir&s;t part of this rea&s;on is only true; God requireth but one Sabbath in a week, and all that can read Engli&s;h know that the Scripture &s;aith that that is the &s;eventh day, and if men had either fear or &s;hame, they would not &s;ay the fir&s;t day is of divine in&s;titution, but if it could be proved, as it never can, the con&s;equence would not follow. His fourth is, that Infidels are not bound to keep <HI>Adams</HI> day, (as he &s;corn|fully calls the Sabbath) for want of notice. To which I an&s;wer, 1. It is not granted him that any want notice of it that are found in their duty &s;eeking after God and his holy will, or &s;hall not al|way want the knowledge of him, if they &s;eek as they may. But 2. I &s;ay, Ignorance will be no excu&s;e at the day of Judgement, God is not bound to come from heaven every age to proclaim his Law, or to proclaim it at every mans door, or el&s;e he may pre|tend want of notice. But 3. Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> may do well to con&s;i|der whether there be any greater Infidels in the world than tho&s;e men that u&s;e to read, <HI>But the &s;eventh day Sabbath of the Lord thy God thou &s;halt not do any work,</HI> and pray over this Law, <HI>Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this Law,</HI> and yet never keep it. 4. and la&s;tly, Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> him&s;elf wants no notice of it, and it can be no excu&s;e for him not to keep it, be|cau&s;e &s;ome poor Heathens may not know it, and how far &s;oever meer ignorance may excu&s;e them, yet this is far from Mr. <HI>Bax|ters</HI> ca&s;e. His 5th. is expre&s;t as a probability that Chri&s;t and his followers would have mentioned this po&s;itve Law, if it be bind|ing; a very &s;trange thing for a man of his parts to bring &s;uch quibbles, again&s;t a Law &s;o delivered, as he confe&s;&s;eth that Law to be, whether there had been any after mention of it or no. But I wonder how he can be &s;o blame-worthy as to deny the Sab|bath to be mentioned by Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles; manife&s;t it is that he would not hav<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> us think he u&s;eth to read <HI>Matthew</HI> and the <HI>Acts,</HI> or that he &s;trang<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ly forgets what he reads. If it had been &s;poken in Queen <HI>Maries</HI> dayes, he might have thought to
<PB N="42" REF="24"> &s;ave his credit, becau&s;e few if they could have reproved him, dur&s;t do it, for fear it &s;hould be known they had a Bible, and &s;o might be burned for hereticks; but now every Boy and Girl can take notice how broad Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> can &s;peak; and for his &s;aying, he never heard the Sabbath pleaded otherwi&s;e than from the fourth Commandement, I mu&s;t beg an excu&s;e for not bel<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">eving him. Next he per&s;wades us, the Law of the fourth Commandement binds us not, becau&s;e &s;aith he, <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> Law never bound any but <HI>Jews</HI> and <HI>Pro&s;elytes</HI> that voluntarily &s;ubjected to that policy, with other frivolous matter, calling <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> Legi&s;lator, ju&s;t as if the Law had not been Gods, but <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> Law. but <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> is not ea&s;ie for me to believe that he is &s;uch a Baby in Religion as he makes him&s;elf, for how came the Law to bind <HI>Jews</HI> and <HI>Pro&s;elytes</HI> and no body el&s;e? can he think God made his Law for &s;uch a certain plot of ground, and for all that &s;hould dwell upon it, and leave the re&s;t of the world lawle&s;s? for if it were made for men, what rea&s;on can there be wherefore it &s;hould not bind one as well as another, <HI>Gentile</HI> as well as <HI>Jew?</HI> and if he do not purpo&s;ely make him&s;elf a child to deceive others, I cannot tell how he &s;hould think otherwi&s;e; for were not the <HI>Pro&s;elytes Gentiles</HI> of other Nations, and if tho&s;e Nations were not bound to keep Gods Law, how came tho&s;e <HI>Pro&s;elytes</HI> to be bound to keep it? for impo&s;&s;ible it is that if it had not been Gods will that they &s;hould pro&s;elyte them&s;elves to his Church, and keep his Law, their doing &s;uch a thing of them&s;elves could not have plea&s;ed him, it could have been but Will-wor&s;hip, and God and his people <HI>I&s;|rael</HI> al&s;o might well have &s;aid to them, when they came to offer them&s;elves to the Church, <HI>Who required this at your hands?</HI> The difference he would put betwixt the ten Commandements written in nature, and in tables of &s;tone, is in&s;ignificant with all wi&s;e and con&s;idering men; the talk he makes of Laws po&s;itive, formal, and natural, is a parcel of ambiguous words, which being left without interpretation, tends to deceive the &s;imple, to make them believe God hath &s;everal moral Laws, and &s;ome bind one age and &s;ort of men, and &s;ome another. And then another de|vice is, to load it with names to make it look like a mon&s;ter, the <HI>Jews</HI> Law, <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> Law, materially it is this, and naturally it is that, and formally it is nothing at all, and all the&s;e &s;hifts are no|thing but a pack of devices to lead the Reader into a wood, that he may there lo&s;e the Sabbath, and not know where to find it in
<PB N="43" REF="24"> the mid&s;t of this confu&s;ion. But the truth is, <HI>Rome</HI> is hone&s;ter than all this comes to, for although &s;he have thrown out Gods holy day, and &s;et up her own in the &s;tead of it, yet &s;he is &s;o ho|ne&s;t as to tell u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;o, and not to deceive us with lies, and father them upon the Scriptures; for the Que&s;tion is about the ten Commandements, and Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> can find no other moral Laws but the&s;e among&s;t all his five &s;orts of Laws, for if he could, he would doubtle&s;s have named them, and told us where we &s;hould find them, and how we &s;hould know them one from another, but this is a work too hard for him; for the truth is, the Law given in innocency, whether naturally or po&s;itively moral; the Law of righteou&s;ne&s;s <HI>Noah</HI> kept, the Law condemning &s;in and com|manding righteou<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ne&s;s in the New Te&s;tament, the Law written in tables of &s;tone, all of them-in all the dre&s;&s;es Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> hath or can paint them out with, are but the very &s;ame Law expre&s;t, <HI>Exod.</HI> 20.3. to the 18th. and this I would prove before <HI>I</HI> went fur|ther, if the A&s;&s;embly had not &s;aved me this labour in the fore|mentioned Books. And for his calling it the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> national Law, never given to any other people, it is &s;o &s;trange and contrary to the whole Book of God, as al&s;o to all Authors that ever were ac|counted orthodox, that I need &s;ay nothing to &s;o bla&s;phemous a device, e&s;pecially &s;eeing this and &s;uch like ab&s;urdities are a&s;&s;erted by him without all &s;hew of proof. But la&s;tly, he concludes this &s;tory with this bold affirmation, that in <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> dayes this Law bound no Nation but the <HI>Jews,</HI> and therefore &s;aith he, it needed no abrogation to the <HI>Gentiles,</HI> but a declaration that it did not bind them; to which I &s;ay, this declaration that the ten Com|mandements never bound any but the <HI>Jews,</HI> was never made be|fore by Prophets, Apo&s;tles, or any godly labourers &s;ince their time; only now you may take notice it is Mr. <HI>Baxters</HI> declara|tion, but who commi&s;&s;ioned-him to put forth this declaration, him&s;elf mu&s;t give an account, for I find neither Author nor Text for any &s;uch thing, only Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> &s;aith it.</P>
<P>His next is this, The whole Law of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> formally as &s;uch is abrogated by Chri&s;t; mark Reader this doctrine, 1. He &s;aith, it never bound any but the <HI>Jews.</HI> 2. He &s;aith, it is abrogated by Chri&s;t formally. Now if this be true, that the form of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> Law Chri&s;t hath abrogated to the <HI>Jews,</HI> and it never bound the <HI>Gentiles,</HI> Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> hath at once di&s;charged all the world of all obedience or regard to be had to the five Books of <HI>Mo&s;es;</HI> for
<PB N="44" REF="25"> how can any man be obliged to regard a Law that concerns him not. Secondly, This roundly follows, that the doctrine of the Prophets which naturally dependeth thereupon, mu&s;t fall of cour&s;e, and can be of no u&s;e to the world. What he means to do with the&s;e blind &s;tories I know not, unle&s;s it be to bring in Athe|i&s;m by whole &s;ale; but I de&s;ire him to con&s;ider that what&s;oever mi&s;chief he doth el&s;e, he cannot do a greater to the poor <HI>Jews</HI> for his life; for can the <HI>Jews</HI> believe, or any body el&s;e that hath com|mon &s;en&s;e, that the Prophet mentioned, <HI>Deut.</HI> 18.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. in&s;tead of &s;peaking Gods words like unto <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> &s;hould come to abrogate <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> Law? Now if this doctrine come to the ears of the <HI>Jews,</HI> and they &s;hould come to Mr. <HI>Baxter,</HI> and ask him, Whether it is his own doctrine and conceit that the <HI>Me&s;|&s;iah</HI> abrogated <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> Law? Or whether he hath &s;ufficient ground to conclude that it is the doctrine of Chri&s;t him&s;elf? What would this man &s;ay? If he took the &s;hame of it upon him|&s;elf, what could they judge of him? If he &s;hould put it off from him&s;elf, and &s;ay it was Chri&s;ts own doctrine, how could they choo&s;e but rejoyce and ble&s;s God, that neither they nor their Fa|thers ever put their tru&s;t in &s;uch a Saviour; and how can they choo&s;e but look upon Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> as an addle-headed man, to &s;e|parate from the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> for breaking the &s;econd Com|mandement, when Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> him&s;elf &s;aith, Chri&s;t hath abro|gated all the ten. But to &s;tand to an&s;wer all his impertinent ex|pre&s;&s;ions, and to di&s;cover how he wre&s;teth the Scriptures in every particular, is too tedious, as the matter of the Law, and the form of the Law, the Law of nature and of Chri&s;t. But accor|ding to his rea&s;oning, whatever there is of the Law of nature, or of Chri&s;t in the ten Commandements, yet as it is written in the Scriptures, he will have it all at an end, el&s;e what can be the meaning of this word &s;o often repeated, the whole Law of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> is abrogated as &s;uch. So that any man may &s;ee his de&s;ign is to per&s;wade men to di&s;-e&s;teem the expre&s;s Word of the Lord, as it is written in the Scriptures of truth; and therefore we have all this, the Law of nature, and the matter of the Law of nature, a mere piece of deceit to blind mens under&s;tandings, to keep them from knowing the will of God, for there is no &s;uch thing as a Law of nature in any proper &s;ence, nor any other moral Law from the beginning of the world to the end of it, but that of the ten Commandements, as it is contained in the Writings of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI>
<PB N="45" REF="25"> in the 20th. of <HI>Exod.</HI> Now this Law may be called Chri&s;ts Law, as it is revealed, taught, or confirmed by him, or through his mediation, but to talk of any &s;uch Law of Chri&s;t under any other con&s;ideration, is either gro&s;s ignorance or non-&s;ence. Likewi&s;e this Law may be called the Law of nature, either as the Book of nature teacheth it, or as we by nature, or the Law of our Crea|tion are bound to keep it. But what is all this to make any alte|ration in that holy and perfect Law of God, the Decalogue? Men may as well talk of more Gods than one, as of more moral Laws than that of the ten Commandements, and as &s;oon it will be proved. Now he hath mo&s;t notoriou&s;ly broke the third Commandement in abu&s;ing the Scriptures, to make his Reader think the whole ten Commandements are abrogate, which I here &s;et down, <HI>Luk.</HI> 16.16. <HI>Joh.</HI> 1.17. <HI>Joh.</HI> 7.19, 23. <HI>Act.</HI> 15.5, 24. <HI>Gal.</HI> 5.3. <HI>Rom.</HI> 2.12, 14, 15, 16. <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 31. and 4.13, 14, 15, 16. and 5.13, 20. and 7.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16. and 9. 4, 31, 32. and 10.5. <HI>Gal.</HI> 2.16, 19, 21. and 32.10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 21, 24. and 4.21. and 5.3, 4, 14, 23. and 6.13. <HI>Eph.</HI> 2.15. <HI>Phil.</HI> 3.6, 9. <HI>Heb.</HI> 7.11, 12, 19. and 9.19. and 10.28. 1 <HI>Cor</HI> 9.21. Now if naming &s;tore of Texts would de&s;troy Gods Law, Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> hath laid it for dead, but not one of them is opened by him to &s;hew how it &s;erves his turn, but there is good rea&s;on for that, becau&s;e there is not one of them all but what &s;peaks directly again&s;t him, or to &s;ome other thing quite different from that he would have it prove. But I mu&s;t note one pa&s;&s;age more, thus ex|pre&s;t by him; It's not part but the whole Law of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> which <HI>Paul</HI> excludeth, (which I ever acknowledged to the <HI>Antinomi|ans,</HI> though they take me for their too great adver&s;ary.) Mark this acknowledgement, and &s;ee whether he might not well be &s;o accounted by them, but it mu&s;t then be for hardening of them in their lawle&s;s tenants. But he not tru&s;ting to all the&s;e Texts, pre&s;&s;eth another to this &s;ervice, which he thinks he may argue, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3.3, 7, 11. for the ce&s;&s;ation of the ten Precepts; where, note Reader, his fallacy in picking out &s;ome words of the Text, and leaving others, ju&s;t as the Devil did, <HI>Mat.</HI> 4.6. in urging <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 91.11, 12. to our Saviour; &s;uch dealing with the holy Scriptures may, if God prevent it not, &s;oon hatch a brood of A|thei&s;ts, to render both them and Mr. <HI>Baxters</HI> painfull labours al&s;o in former Books, a &s;corn; for, might not an Athei&s;t, with as good a colour of rea&s;on &s;ay, the God is dead that brought up the
<PB N="46" REF="26"> children of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> out of the Land of <HI>Egypt,</HI> and name <HI>Jer.</HI> 23.7, 8. and then &s;ay, as his Commentary upon the place, nothing but partial violence can evade the force of this Text. And now to the Text it &s;elf, evident it is that the &s;cope of the place is not to per&s;wade the <HI>Corinths</HI> again&s;t the continuation of the ten Commandements, as a rule of life, but to exalt the mini&s;tration of the Go&s;pel, as more powerfull for the conver&s;ion of men un|to God, then the mini&s;tration of the Law when it was written in tables of &s;tone. For though they had &s;o glorious a di&s;covery of God and of his coun&s;el in that di&s;pen&s;ation in that day, yet they remained blinded and hardened for all that; but the mini|&s;tration of the Go&s;pel and pre&s;ence of the Spirit with it, had wrought that in the hearts of the <HI>Corinthians</HI> by <HI>Pauls</HI> Mini&s;try, which the <HI>Jews</HI> neglecting and refu&s;ing fell &s;hort of, namely, a &s;aving, &s;anctifying faith. For although they did believe <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> yet rejecting the light of the Go&s;pel that came into the world &s;ince Chri&s;ts coming in the fle&s;h, were &s;till, or became thereby, which you will, &s;o blind, that they under&s;tood not the end of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> Mini&s;try, but read the Old Te&s;tament without fruit, as appears in the 14, 15. ver&s;es of the Chap. But it will never be proved from this Text, that either the Law it &s;elf or the glo|rious mini&s;tration of it either, is done away in Mr. <HI>Baxters</HI> &s;ence, but to this day the mini&s;tration of it &s;hines bright enough, for Dr. <HI>Owen</HI> to argue with great authority the perpetuity of the Decalogue. But I &s;hall grant him, that the mini&s;tration of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> there pointed at, is done away in &s;uch a &s;ence as the light of the Moon is put away by the ri&s;ing of the Sun in a clear morning, out-&s;hining of it, as may be in&s;tanced from that fore|named Text, <HI>Jer.</HI> 23.7, 8. Can Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> or any man ever imagine, that the dayes will ever come, that the &s;ame God that brought up <HI>I&s;rael</HI> from <HI>Egypt,</HI> either doth not live, or that men &s;hall either be afraid or a&s;hamed to &s;ay he lives, or to make any the lea&s;t que&s;tion again&s;t the ever-living of the God that wrought that deliverance, but only to &s;ignifie that there was a work in the heart of the &s;ame God to do, which when it was done would out-&s;hine the other. And this any man may &s;ee to be the &s;ence of 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3d. chap. that is not wilfully blind, that although the glory of God did &s;hine in his writing the Law to put in the Ark, which according to <HI>Phil.</HI> 4.19. with other pla|ces, if need were, may well be interpreted grace or rich mercy,
<PB N="47" REF="26"> yet the graee or riches of glory that followed in a more clear di&s;|covery of the Go&s;pel, and the gracious ends God had in the then delivery of his law as he did, being now with plainne&s;s expre&s;t, <HI>Rom,</HI> 5.20, 21. <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.4. with other places, which in that day were darkly hinted, is much more glorious, and this is <HI>Pauls</HI> &s;ence, as appears in the 8, 9, 10. ver&s;es of that 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3. for if it were done away in Mr. <HI>Baxters</HI> &s;en&s;e, how could it be a killing Letter, a Law of Death, and Condemnation? Sure if it be the Law that bringeth death and condemnation, it mu&s;t be in force to injoyn obedience. Again, there were no place for <HI>Paul</HI> to com|plain of the Jews blindne&s;s, and of the vail upon their hearts in reading the old Te&s;tament, if it be wholly abrogated; for what makes it matter whether a Law be under&s;tood or no, that binds no body, for he told us before that it was abrogated to the Jews and for the Gentiles, there needed nothing but a declaration that it did not bind them, but I have di&s;charged this Text in an Ap|pendix to Mr. <HI>Spittlehou&s;e</HI> book of the morality of the Sabbath long agoe, or &s;uch ab&s;urdities Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> puts on it, and I &s;hall here give &s;ome rea&s;ons further for clearing this truth; namely, that the moral law of God, or law of ten Commandements re|mains to the end of the world a rule of Godlyne&s;s and Righteou&s;ne&s;s in every jot and tittle of it, therefore the fourth Command mu&s;t needs remain with the &s;ame names God him&s;elf hath baptized it with, or with his own mouth given to it, <HI>the &s;eventh the Sabbath of Jehovah thy God,</HI> which cannot be taken from it without offering much more violence to it, then to job it of a jot or a tittle. How be&s;ides this Text hinted, <HI>Mat.</HI> 5.17, 18, 19, 20, 21. where it is plain beyond all po&s;&s;ibility of de|nial, that the ten precepts expre&s;t, <HI>Exod.</HI> 20. are meant or inten|ded; in which words with the context it is mo&s;t plain, that our Lord would not have us think he came to make void one tittle of it to the worlds end, but to confirm it a rule of life, to all his di&s;ciples, to make them &s;hine as lights in the world; unto which I might add a hundred more, but con&s;ider the&s;e few mo&s;t plain and readie&s;t in memory, <HI>Luke</HI> 16.17. <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.19.31. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 9.8.21. and 14.34. and 15.56. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.5.9. <HI>James</HI> 2.8, 9, 10, 11. and 4.11. 1 <HI>John</HI> 3.3, to 12. 2 <HI>John</HI> 4, 5, 6. all which pla|ces be &s;o plain, they need no expo&s;ition, but I &s;hall add to the&s;e
<PB N="48" REF="27"> plain Texts the&s;e further rea&s;ons to prove the perpetual continu|ance of this law.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t rea&s;on, becau&s;e it is pronounced by our Lord Je&s;us him|&s;elf to be a law of equity, <HI>Mat.</HI> 7.12. Now whatever is done again&s;t a law of equity, is done again&s;t equity it &s;elf, but mani|fe&s;t it is, Chri&s;t commandeth equity, and that from the autho|rity of the Law, therefore he did not aboli&s;h it.</P>
<P>Secondly, it is declared by him, <HI>Mat.</HI> 22.40. that this law is the Epitome or &s;ub&s;tance of all the Prophets, and if it be ab|rogated, the whole old Te&s;tament mu&s;t fall with it of cour&s;e; but to &s;ay that Chri&s;t came to abrogate the old Te&s;tament, is a Bla&s;phemy high enough for a Ranter.</P>
<P>Thirdly, this law is the law by which the Lord Chri&s;t will judge the manners of all the world at the Judgment day, <HI>Rom.</HI> 2 <HI>chap.</HI> which could not be except it were a rule of life to all the world.</P>
<P>Fourthly, it is one great work of the Holy Spirit, to write this law in the hearts of his people; which would be but a vain work if it were not a continuing law.</P>
<P>Fifthly, the Law hath an office a&s;&s;igned it, which is of perpe|tual u&s;e to all the world, <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.20. and 7.7. therefore it mu&s;t re|main a law for ever; for no man can know &s;in by the law, unle&s;s it be his duty to keep it.</P>
<P>Sixthly, the Law hath nothing in it contrary to the tendere&s;t part of the Go&s;pel, no more then the Faith or the Go&s;pel hath a|gain&s;t the law, but they do their di&s;tinct offices without jarr or interrupting each other in their cour&s;e, <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.19, 20, 28, 29.30, 31. and therefore there is no rea&s;on wherefore the Law as a rule of life &s;hould be aboli&s;hed any more then the Go&s;|pel.</P>
<P>Seventhly, holine&s;s, ju&s;tice, and goodne&s;s, being the nature of this law, it cannot be aboli&s;hed, except holine&s;s, ju&s;tice, and good|ne&s;s be &s;o al&s;o. But this is the de&s;cription <HI>Paul</HI> gives of the Law, <HI>Rom.</HI> 7.12. and in the next words tells us, that there is nothing in the nature of the Law by which man becomes a &s;ufferer but in &s;in, which is contrary to the Law, and for my part I cannot &s;ee no rea&s;on wherefore any man &s;hould once &s;uppo&s;e or imagine he is not bound to keep the ten Commandments, unle&s;s he greatly want either wi&s;dom or hone&s;ty.</P>
<PB N="49" REF="27">
<P>The eighth rea&s;on wherefore this holy Law mu&s;t needs be perpetual, is, becau&s;e it was one of the ends of Chri&s;ts coming, and dying, that his people might be &s;upplyed with &s;trong<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> of grace to keep it, yea, to keep it ful<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y, <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.2, 3, 4. the words are mo&s;t expre&s;s, that the righteou&s;ne&s;s of the Law m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ght be ful|filled in us, he doth not &s;ay for us, but in us; but if they did &s;o &s;ay, yet were the proof for this thing &s;trong and clear; for there can be no nece&s;&s;ity for Chri&s;ts fulfilling this law for us, if we our &s;elves were not bound to fulfill it, and he can never be &s;uppo&s;ed to de&s;ign the fulfilling of it, that weekly breaks the fourth Command with allowance.</P>
<P>Ninthly, the Law hath an unchangeable goodne&s;s in it as ever it had, and in and of it &s;elf; it will do mankind as much good as ever it would have done, and no more harm then in the day of innocence. For however the Law kills, or condemns, it comes not to pa&s;s through any defect in the Law, but through that &s;in|ful alteration that is in man, and that the Law retains its primitive goodne&s;s, &s;ee <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.5. Now it is again&s;t all rea&s;on, that Gods good law &s;hould be aboli&s;hed for mans fault. But,</P>
<P>Tenthly, Seeing the &s;pirit of God hath given this Law the name of a perfect Law, it mu&s;t needs remain for ever, without the lea&s;t alteration; for if any thing be added to that which is per|fect, it cannot mend it, but blemi&s;h it; nor can a jot or a tittle be taken from it, but it mu&s;t lo&s;e &s;o much of its per|fection.</P>
<P>Eleventhly, this Law hath &s;o perfect a congruity with that a|biding grace of love, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 13.8.13. <HI>Rom.</HI> 13.8, 10. that it is unrea&s;onable to think the one can be abrogated any more then the other.</P>
<P>Twelfthly and la&s;tly, the Scripture expre&s;&s;eth, <HI>Gal.</HI> 3.13. that the great work of redemption con&s;i&s;teth in bearing the cur&s;e of the Law for us, to free us from the cur&s;e thereof. And impo&s;&s;ible it is that we can be delivered from the cur&s;e of the Law, and from the obedience of it al&s;o; for it can never cur&s;e him that oweth it no obedience.</P>
<P>And unto all the&s;e Texts and Rea&s;ons, I &s;hall add thus much; that all the mention that is made of the law in them mu&s;t of ne|ce&s;&s;ity intend that law proclaimed by the Lord at <HI>Sinai,</HI> if Chri&s;t
<PB N="50" REF="28"> and this Apo&s;tles intended any body &s;hould under&s;tand what they meant by what they &s;aid; evident it is beyond all doubt, that tho&s;e well known commandments they every where inte<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d, and for his urging tho&s;e Texts in the <HI>Heb. Ephe&s;.</HI> and <HI>Colo&s;.</HI> as he doth. I on|ly &s;ay it is below a man that profe&s;&s;eth &s;o much knowledge as to undertake to write books, to bring tho&s;e Texts to prove the abro|gation of the ten commandments, which never were under&s;tood, to be &s;hadows of the body of Chri&s;t by any man but Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> nor tho&s;e Texts. <HI>Colo&s;. Ephe&s;.</HI> and <HI>Heb.</HI> otherwi&s;e then &s;hadows, much le&s;s does it become a Mini&s;ter of the Go&s;pel. For if it be ignorance it is both &s;infull and &s;hameful; and it mu&s;t &s;pring from that root or a wor&s;e, but this is an ordinary &s;in with him, to pre&s;s whole files of Texts at a time, to &s;erve in his warfare, whe|ther they will or no. Now for the Objections and An&s;wers which takes up the latter part of this <HI>chap.</HI> any rational man may &s;ee the lamene&s;s of his cau&s;e, by his frequent denials and grants, touching the very &s;ame law; for when he hath done all he can to render it &s;tanding in the book of God for a Cipher, yet can he find no other law of nature, or of Chri&s;t, but it: See the 77 page, and note, how far that Text is from &s;erving his intere&s;t, with which he would put all out of doubt; page 80. <HI>Col.</HI> 2.16. where the Sabbaths there intended are expre&s;ly &s;aid to be &s;hadows of the body of Chri&s;t; which no man will &s;ay of that Sabbath appointed in innocency, that is in his right mind, but the &s;eventh day on which God re&s;ted from his work he appointed for his wor&s;hip by Mr. <HI>Baxters</HI> own confe&s;&s;ion, 89 page; but I am not willing to trouble my &s;elf or Reader with all that might be an&s;wered, except the whole book were more con&s;iderable then it is. I find in the end of his book an Appendix, wherein I per|ceive &s;ome worthy pen hath wrote unto him, it may be to &s;top his cour&s;e, when he might hear what work he was about, but this is my conjecture. But evident it is, that the rea&s;ons given him by that hand are &s;ub&s;tantial, and grounded upon the Scriptures, and &s;eeing &s;uch arguments &s;o headily turned off by Mr. <HI>Baxter,</HI> with a &s;ound of empty words, makes me to fear that he is a very wilful man, but I will not take work out of &s;o worthy a workmans hand, or el&s;e I &s;hould not &s;o let Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> go. But Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> in the end of his Po&s;t&s;cript &s;ignifieth he will not allow him&s;elf to be an|&s;wered
<PB N="51" REF="28"> except Doctor <HI>Young</HI> be an&s;wered al&s;o; but this &s;orry &s;hift to &s;top the Pens of men till he be an&s;wered, that hath written as ill as him&s;elf, mu&s;t not &s;erve his turn, he cannot be &s;o excu&s;ed, as ill I &s;ay, if he &s;peak truth, and I was not very willing to take up my time to an&s;wer &s;o much of his book as I have done, if there had not been a ju&s;t nece&s;&s;ity. Se|condly as a more full an&s;wer, if Mr. <HI>Baxters</HI> book and Dr. <HI>Youngs</HI> be &s;o neer a kin, that the one is an Appendix to the other, more large, but the &s;ame for &s;ub&s;tance, then the an&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Bax|ters,</HI> an&s;wers the Doctors al&s;o.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<HEAD>Courteous Reader, The&s;e Errataes thou art de&s;ired to mend with thy Pen.</HEAD>
<P>PAge 6. l. 18. read to truth. p. 7. l. 33. r. and brings. p. 10. l. 3. r. the Sunday. l. 6 leave out Chri&s;t, and add or. l. 15. leave out though. p. 11. l. 33. r. 130. p. 12. l. 15. leave out upon, r. from. l. 16. for &s;haddery, r. &s;hadowy. l. 32. for given, r. gi|ving. l. 34. r. and for him. p. 14. l. 4. r. at a. p. 16. l. 5. for Covenant of Grace. r. Covenant Grace. p. 18. l. 1. r. Apo&s;tles and all. p. 19. l. 26. leave out of. p. 24. l. 2. r. of rea&s;on. p. 33. l. 39. r. fal&s;ified.</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
