A LETTER TO M R. MEAD, IN ANSWER to several Unscriptural, and Unsound Say of his, in a Sermon against the Seventh-Day-Sabbath, Preached at his Place of Meeting, the Twenty Third of the Second Month. 1682.  
WROTE the same Day the Sermon was Preached, refuting his Arguments, and turning them back, making their Unskilfulness and Weakness manifest; and clearly Evidencing, That the Seventh-Day is the Sabbath Day; by clear Scripture-Testimony, and sound Arguments grounded thereon.  
Published for his Hearers, because he would neither hear an Objection in Public, nor admit of a Conference in Private.  Prov. 27. 5. Open Rebuke is better than secret Love. 
London, Printed for the Author, and are to be Sold by John Laurence at the Angel in Cornhill, near the Royal-Exchange.   

A Prefatory Epistle TO Mr. Meads Hearers.  
Men, Brethren, and Fathers;  
AND all you that heard him that day, Read the Defence which I make for myself in this Practice; you are my Witnesses (especially such of you as were near me) how I behaved myself in your Assembly, giving no disturbance, or cause of offence to any Man; but listening attentively to the Word spoken, lest I should let any of it slip: And when the Sermon was ended, I stood up and assayed to speak; but a Psalm being called, I abode in silence until the whole Service was over; and then I stood up, and Meekly, Reverently, and Submissively craved leave to speak; to which Mr. Mead answered, That I had no Call to speak there. And I replied, He would better judge of that when he had heard what I had to say; (for he knew not but I might Report that God was in you of a Truth, 1 Cor. 14. 25.) but I was again repulsed, and denied leave to speak: Wherefore I went away peaceably, neither with Noise or Tumult. And as I went forth, several of you witnessed, That I spoke modestly, and wished that I had been heard; and others of you gave me assurance, That Mr. Mead would be ready, and free to have private Conference with me, and urged me to take a convenient Season to go to him; upon which I hasted home, and the same Afternoon wrote a large Letter to him; and I have Printed my Letter herewith, that you may judge betwixt us: For receiving no Answer to my Letter, neither in public (for he omitted Preaching the next Firstday) nor in private: I took a Friend with me, and went to his House, and told him, I was the Man, that in his public Assembly, desired leave to speak; and had since Wrote unto him, and receiving no Answer to my Letter, I made bold to wait upon him for it: At which he Majesterially asked me as the Chief Priest asked our Lord Jesus Christ; By what Authority I spoke in his Meeting? At which I wonderingly repeated his words— And he replied (demandingly) Ay, I ask you by what Authority? And said farther, That I made a Disturbance in the Worship of God, and occasioned a Scandal to be cast upon them. To which I mildly answered, That I made no Disturbance in the Worship of God; neither gave any occasion of Scandal; and that I spoke by the Authority of the Scriptures; and pulled out my Bible, to show from the Scriptures, that my Practice therein was to be justified: But he not caring to have an Authentical Answer to His Majesterial Demand, Pilate like, John 18. 38. went off from that, and told me, I had Notoriously Abused him in my Letter, calling him ignorant Fellow, and ask him if he were not ashamed. To which I answered, That I did not call him ignorant fellow; but to say he was ignorant of this or that, I thought no crime, and hoped he would acknowledge his ignorance in some things (and indeed ignorance is the fairest excuse that can be made for him) and I hope he would be ashamed of an Error; and I wondered that he should so Treat me: but he said, he had shown my Letter to my Betters and his too; and that he had a sufficient account of me, what a fellow I was; insinuating, as if he had heard some ill thing of me, but mentioning nothing; but I knew, he that reproved a Scorner, would get to himself a Blot: And I urged to have an Answer to my Arguments, but he ignorantly told me, I deserved no other answer, but to be sent to the House of Correction; and he could spend his time better, than to talk with such a fellow; and so he shown me the way to the Door. And more such like words he gave me, though I gave him no one provoking word, but Debased myself to Gain upon him; because I had heard he was a Proud  Man. When he said I deserved to be sent to the House of Correction, I answered him, That I was glad he had not Power: And so I am, for if he had power, I might have a Scandalum Magnatum brought against me, of more Hundred pounds' Damage, than I am worth, though the Letter was privately sent to his own hand, and he suffered no damage at all. It may be, some of you will not know how to bear my Plaindealing with the Man you so much Love; but how do you think I can bear, being threatened with a House of Correction, a place for vagrant Rogues, and not for a Man that is well known, and lives in good Repute, whose Wife, and Children, and Servants, are all an Honour to him? How do you think such a Man can bear such Majesterial Threats, from one that hath no power over him? and how provoking was it to be despised and scorned, as not worthy to be spoke to; and how unlike humble Paul was it to carry it thus? for Paul became all things to all Men, that he might by any means Save some. If any of you do judge my Style too harsh, I desire you will weigh his Carriage to me in the same Balance; and for what was suggested against me, I told him it was a light thing with me, to be Judged of Man's Judgement; but let them that Accuse me, speak nothing but the truth, and I challenge them to search my whole Life, and publish my Crimes, if they themselves be not guilty of them: through Mercy I have been kept from the common Pollutions of the Times, and Corruptions in my Calling, fraudulent Dealing, and Usury; and of this I have Witness: And I am sure the worst he could hear of me, was, that I am a Passionate Man; Ay, I am persuaded, that was the account he had of me; for he took a ready course to be too hard for a Choleric Man; but he did not magnify his Office therein. I do not glory in my Passion, or count it a light Sin, but writ it to my shame, that he may not think I exalt myself above him, when I would have him be ashamed of any Error he committed; and if an Enemy will discover any Sin in me, that I do not see in myself, I will count him my Friend therein: Nay, though he do it out of Malice, I will accept it in Love; and if I shall get the farther Knowledge of Sin in myself (by this Controversy) so that I may overcome it, I shall count I have good Gain; but if I can also convince him and you of the Error in his Doctrine, which I writ against, I shall gain that I Labour for: Though what I have said in haste, be very short of what might be pleaded for the Truth; yet if fudes be laid aside, and a Conference be admitted in a calm cool Spirit, I doubt not, but to Answer whatever this Objecter hath to say against the Truth and Duty I pleaded for: But if instead of that, Sin be added to Sin, and I am slanderously reported, and scandals be raised of me, which for matter of Fact, are not true, and need to be answered, you must not expect that I can print books to clear myself. No, that will be too costly. The cheapest way I can think of at present, is, to publish my Defence (if I am wronged) in some of the News books: And there you may expect to hear of me, on any such Occasion,  
W. T:   

A LETTER to Mr. MEAD, etc.  
Honoured Sir,  
THe Leave I Craved, with humble submission, in your public Assembly this day, being not granted; I have wrote some of those Objections I had then to make Ex Tempore, against the greatest part of your Sermon, which you delivered premeditately, and with the help of Notes. And though I am but a Youth in Years, and of mean Capacity, whereby I am much your Inferior and Unequal; yet I hope through Grace, I am a Babe in Christ, having a Spiritual palate, whereby I can in some good measure discern the sincere Milk of the Word, from the unsavoury say of men without, and against the word of truth: And from thence it is I am Emboldened to engage in this Controversy with you: And before I engage in the Refuting your Arguments against the Lord's Honourable-Seventh-day-Sabbath, I first assure you, that I will endeavour to keep as close as I can, to the exact form and due order of your Arguments; and if in any thing I miss it, if you will make it known to me in writing, I will admit that to be your mind and meaning, which you shall so declare to me in writing to be your meaning. And that you may not mistake me, I declare to you, that it is not any Argument against the Godhead, or against the Power of Christ, that I do oppose: for I do firmly believe, The Lord Jesus Christ to be God, Equal with the Father; that he is Jehovah, and the Holy Spirit is Jehovah; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one Jehovah. But my Objections are against your Assertion, That Jesus Christ has Changed the day of the Sabbath; And that it was necessary he should so do. Your Scriptures for it, you said, you laid down the day before; and I not being present then, do not know them, and so cannot Answer to them: but those Texts of Scripture, which have usually been brought against it by Dr. Owen, and other Objectors against the Lords Honourable day, are largely discoursed, and their Genuine sense and proper meaning are held forth, and cleared up (agreeing with the whole Scripture where it Treats of that Subject matter) in a Treatise of the Sabbath, wrote by Mr. F. Bampfield, sold by Mr. Laurence at the Angel in Cornhill, near the Royal Exchange. Your humane Authorities, which you brought to back your other plea, have no Authority with me, neither ought they to have any Authority in the conscience of any man, being contrary to Christ, and the word of Christ, and contradicting of one another. Justin Martyr, your first Author, saith they assembled on the Sunday; and gives this as the ground of it, That being the first day wherein God separating the light from the darkness, did Create the World, And Jesus Christ our Saviour risen again from the dead: This is the ground of their Assembling, and both groundless. For the world was not made in a day, but in Six days, and the Seventh was Created a Sabbath, and Sanctified a Sabbath; and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Fourth Command, being future Piel, he shall Sanctify; does clearly prove the Continuance of its Sanctifiedness: for it is still a speaking word, the like you have in the first of Genesis concerning the light, (which your Author would make a wrong use of) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there shall be light, and there shall be light; the Word not only gave light a being, but continues it in its being; so this Word not only Sanctified the Sabbath, but continues it Sanctified as long as the word remains in the Command; what, because Justin Martyr, and the people with him, voluntarily met on that day, and gives a groundless reason for it, will you from thence Embolden your hearers to Transgress the Seventh-day-Sabbath? which sin, the Lord hath Threatened so many Judgements against; and which fin you can hardly, prove your Author Guilty of: for although they met upon Sunday, and observed several other Festivals, with as great Veneration, and imposed them with as great Authority, even Easter day, and all the fifty days from Easter to Whitsuntide, were accounted Holy; and Solemnised with no less observation than the Sundays were. Thus the Church was Corrupted, with the observation of holidays so early, and with divers other Superstitions, as Mixing water with the Wine in the Lord's Supper, and standing in their devotion, making Kneeling, which is the proper posture in prayer, to be a crime in those holidays, with many other Corruptions; and must the practice of such a corrupt generation of Churches be brought forth; for a Confirmation of a Doctrine in this age, of growing light; No, it's too late to impose upon us with such Authorities. Yet your own Authors, call no other day the Sabbath but the Seventh; nor for a thousand years after Christ, were Historians so bold to call any other day by that name, or give that day any other name, and very many Churches did observe the Seventh-day-Sabbath, as your Historians mention; and one main difference between the Eastern, and Western Churches, was that the Western Churches, fasted and afflicted themselves on the Sabbath, which being no proper work on a Sabbath day, the Eastern Churches admonished them to reform it. Neither did they observe Sunday as a Sabbath, but did their common business thereon, when their Assembling was over; neither did they pretend any Scripture ground, for their meeting on Sunday, but took it up Voluntarily: and afterwards when it came to be confirmed by Edicts of men, even then much work was allowed to be done upon it, and the Seventh-day-Sabbath was not made void, but obedience required to that also; but I am a weary of this. How contrary to the word of God in your own Judgement, was the sentence of the venerable Counsel of Laodicea, that you even now, when your first day is at the height, durst not say Amen to it; but the Churches were corrupted in the Apostles time, Antichrist was then already come, and therefore we need not run to the Church History, to find Errors in them, for which we should not take them for a rule, since we are not referred to them, but to the Law, and to the Testimony.  
But you come to Arguments, to prove that Christians are not tied to the observation of the Seventh day-Sabbath; though tied to the observation of the Fourth Command (a plain contradiction in its self) and one of your Arguments, which you call unanswerable, is.  
That believing Gentiles or Christians, are not bound to the observation of the Seventh-day-Sabbath, neither by the Law of Nature, nor by the Law of Moses, nor by the Law of Christ; and because this is the great Argument you rest upon, and trust in, I shall first put you in mind of some of your own Concessions; and then speak directly to your Argument, as you enforced it.  
You grant that believers are bound, to the observation of the Ten Commands as a Rule of Life, (and I hope you will grant as a Rule of Faith, and Worship too; or else you will leave out the greatest Commandment) you also grant, that Law can no more be Changed, than the nature of good and evil can be Changed; that its the Express Idea of God's image; and that God can as soon cease to be, as the Law to be Changed; that what is of Moral Equity, Extends to every believer or every man. Although you disowned all that was in the Fourth Command to be Moral, yet you owned these three things Moral: as First, the Observation of a Sabbath. Secondly, that this Sabbath is a Seventh part of time. Thirdly, that this Seventh part of time must be of Gods own appointing; and as Corrupt as you are, in your opinion about the Fourth Command; either through ignorance of the proper Significancy, and Genuine meaning of the Hebrew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (or worse than ignorance) yet you have granted so much Truth, that you cannot deny the Seventh day to be the Sabbath, without contradicting your own words; for Sabbath-day and Seventh-day are connatural, it) is the Seventh-days proper nature, to be the weekly Sabbath, and that I will evidence to you, if you will appoint time and place; and the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Notes of demonstration pointing out a certain, known, determined, fixed, unchangeable Day in every week, and not a Seventh part of time barely; but that set Seventh day. And the Lord hath never appointed another day, which you grant must be of the Lords appointing; and when you spoke, that Christ hath power to change the Sabbath, as he is God, do you not tremble to impose upon your hearers, with such devices? Did you not declare, God could as soon cease to be, as the Law of the Ten words to be changed? your unskilful defining of the Law of nature, shall not help you out in this case, as I will show you presently; therefore I now come to answer your supposed unanswerable Argument in its Three parts.  
You said believers are not bound to the observation of the Seventh day Sabbath, by the Law of nature, because (say you) the light of nature can't discern the Seventh day, from any other, for there is no difference between one day and another in nature: take a man and shut him up in a dungeon a considerable time; where he can see no light, and when he comes forth, he cannot know the Seventh day from any of the other days, and because the Seventh day cannot be known by the Light of the nature, it is not of the Law of nature. With a great many more of such like words, (by the way I would tell you, that exact Astronomers have observed, that natural days are not of Equal Length, and it were worth your research into it; whether the Seventh day be not longer in time, and have more minutes in it then the first.)  
But for answer to your Argument, if no Law be a Law of nature, but that which may be known by the Light of nature; then the first Command cannot be a Law of nature; for by the Light of nature we cannot come at the knowledge of the True God, of a God in Christ; neither by that Rule, is the Second Command a Law of nature, for by the Light of nature (as it is depraved by the fall) man knows not, that an after God is not to be worshipped; but the Heathen and Pagans, that have not the Light of the written word, nor of the Enlightening Spirit they worship after Gods. Neither can the Third Command be a Law of nature by that Rule; for by the Light of nature men know not that great and dreadful name Jehovah, AElohecha, which is not to be taken in vain; neither can that part of the Fourth Command, which you acknowledge to be Moral, a Seventh part of time, be a Law of nature by that Rule, (for to use your own dark demonstration) shut a man up in a Dungeon all his days; where he can see no Light; and the Light of nature, will not teach him the knowledge of the Seventh part of time; No, he must be taught by the Word, which is the ground of knowledge; how to number Seven, and how to measure the days, by the Luminaries of heaven: Neither can the Fifth Command, be a Law of nature by that Rule; for take a Child from his Parents before it knows them, as the Turks do, and breed it up where they shan't know of one another, and call it by another name, and it cannot know its Parents to Honour them: Neither can the Sixth Command be a Law of nature by that Rule, for you know, you said if it were a Law of nature, natural Conscience would Check for the breach of it; but unbelieving men that have not faith, they have killed, and will kill the Saints, and think they do God good service in it, they are so far from the Checks of Conscience. For shame retract this ignorant definition of the Law of nature. But to Answer your second part of your imaginary unanswerable Argument.  
Secondly, Your second part of your Argument was, That Believers are not bound to observe the Seventh-Day-Sabbath, by the Law of Moses, or the Law, as given forth by Moses, because the Law of Moses was given only to the Jews; and therefore Believers were freed from the whole Law, as given by Moses, and must receive it as renewed by the Power of Christ.  
Answ. How is that? Dare you say again as you did, That we are freed from the Law, as given at Sinai? Did not Jehovah Christ give the Law at Sinai? Psal. 68 17, 18. Did not the whole Earth quake at his Presence and Voice? ver. 7, 8. Heb. 12. 25, 26. Eph. 4. 8. Is not this Christ the Angel that was with Moses in the Wilderness, who then spoke to him in Mount Sinai, of whom Moses received the lively Oracles to give unto us? Acts 7. 37, 38. And will you reject this Law, as given at Sinai, because it was handed to us by Moses? Is not this Law of Moses to be remembered in the Last Days? Mal. 4. 4. and the Context. Unless Christ's Righteousness be imputed to you for your Justification, Moses will accuse you to the Father, John 5. 45. Had the unbelieving Jews believingly heard Moses, they would have believed Christ, ver. 46. If you will not believe Moses his Writings, how can you believe Christ? I know not how you will Evidence your Faith in Christ, but by your Obedience to this Law of Moses, James 2. 18. especially.  
Will you not hear Moses? then you are not of the mind of Glorified Abraham, Luk. 16. 29. Will you not hear Moses? then you will not be persuaded, though one Rose from the Dead.  
Thirdly, The third part of your Argument was, That Believers are not tied by the Law of Christ, to observe the Seventh-Day-Sabbath; for Christ never reinforced this Law; and the Apostle, who spoke by Command from Christ, leaves Men to their Liberty, whether to observe it or not.  
Answ. How unskilfully do you divide the Word of God? Have I not proved in my last Answer, that Christ gave the Law at Sinai? And is not that the Law of Christ? And of unchangeable Nature? And does not that Law plainly require it? Nay, Does not our Lord Christ declare, That the Sabbath was made for Man? Mark. 2. ver. 27. and, Does he not say, he is Lord of the Sabbath? ver. 28. What, would you Rob Christ of his Lordship, and give him another for it? It will not be accepted by him, no other is a Type of our Eternal Rest. (Compare King Ahab and Jezebels Dealing with Naboth for his Vineyard to this.) Why should our Lord bid the Jews pray, that their Flight be not on the Sabbath Day (which was to be near Forty Years after) if they were not bound to observe the Sabbath? Mat. 24. 20. How can our Lord's Word be Fulfilled, Mat. 5. 17, 18. if the Sabbath be changed from the Seventh-Day to the First? For, more than one jot or one tittle will pass from the Law, if the Sabbath Day be changed, which is so pointed out by Notes of Demonstration, by Particles, by Pronouns, by Prepositions; all significant to point out the Seventh Day, as I have showed already. Have a care of Teaching Men to break any one of Christ's Commands, or of Erring in one point, James 2. 10. If you would have any other reinforcing of this Law, than what I have mentioned; pray show me where the Seventh Part of time hath any other reinforcing, and yet you assert a Seventh Part of time to be Moral, and to be the Law of Christ. How Unskilfully did you open and apply, Rom. 14. 5. One Man esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike; This you said Related to the Seventh-Day-Sabbath, and that the Apostle (by Command from Christ) left Men to their Liberty, to do as they were persuaded in their own Mind. What if a Man be persuaded, the Seventh-Day is the Sabbath? according to your Doctrine, he is to be left to do, as he is persuaded in his own Mind; and not to be set against with Frightful words, as if he were departing from the Living God, as your Text was; nor set against with whole Sermons, that have no Alliance to the Text they are raised from. Neither should a Man of this persuasion be slandered, as if he fell into an Error, that had many other Errors attend it? No, he should be left to do, as he is persuaded in his own mind. What if a Man esteems every day alike, and Works every day, and keeps no Sabbath; or Idles every day, and does no Work? By your Doctrine he must be left to his persuasion. You went to contradict yourself, by bringing another case, which would not ways agree, nor run▪ parallel with it; that of Christ's saying to the Woman of Samaria about Jerusalem and that Mountain, not being the places of Worship, Whence you Argued, every place is alike, a place of Worship, which has no footing in that Scripture; but I will let that pass, to show you how Unskilfully you Argued from thence; for if all places were alike places of Worship; yet that does not leave Men to their own persuasions, whether to Worship or not: No, our Lord tells us, The Father seeks true Spiritual Worshippers; so that Worship is still required there; and if you would have any inference from this, it must be; then Men may Worship where they will; as to the place, if it be indifferent, then in the Idols Temple, or where Men have a mind. This is the most you can get by this Unskilful Comparison. O but you added, We were freed from Moses his Yoke, and were to take Christ's Yoke upon us: Are we? then we must not walk after our own persuasions; and if we are to take Christ's Yoke upon us, than we are to keep his Sabbath, that plain pleasant Way of his, and to call it our delight, etc. and he will multiply Blessings upon us.  
Thus I have been helped, to throw down your strong hold in which you trusted. Yet for fear this should fail, you brought another from the constant practice of the Apostles, who you said slighted the Seventh-Day, and met upon the First: Tremble at the Word of the Lord which gives the lie to your Assertion, Acts, 14. 13.- 44. and 16. 13. and 17. 2, 3. and 18. 4. and if you will prove the Apostles met on the first day of the week, for Instituted Worship, first tell me, whether in Matt. 28. 1. Mark. 16. 2. Luke 24. 1. John 20. 1. 19 Acts 20. 7. and 1 Cor. 16. 2. that which is Rendered the First day of the week, be not in every one of those places one of the Sabbaths; and if so, what those Sabbaths are; and whether then you will find any ground to bottom your Assertion upon, that the Apostles met on the first day for Instituted Worship? You also had a third Argument from Revel. 1. 10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, which you would have to be the first day of the week; but gave not one Scripture for your Interpretation. What must it be taken for granted upon your saying? But I will offer Scripture and Argument against that Interpretation. Did you not acknowledge the Seventh-Day is called the Sabbath of the Lord, and the Lords Holy Day; and doth not our Lord Jesus Christ say he is Lord of the Sabbath-Day; so that if it meant any one particular day in the week, it must be this Seventh-Day-Sabbath, and this is a solid ground so to judge. But I think it is no ingenious Interpretation of the place, to limit it to any particular day in the week; for John saw in Visions, and heard by Voice, all those things that are Revealed in that book, and was Removed from place to place, a work too great to be concluded to be done in one natural day, unless you had clearer Evidence that it was so; But doth not this day evidently relate to that providential day of the Lord Christ's Appearing in the fulfilling of this Prophecy; for this manifestation by Vision and by Voice to John, was, as if the thing had been acted and performed before his Face, as if the day of the performance of those Prophecies had been come: He was so in that day in the Spirit, that it was to him made Real, and that not only to Faith but to outward Senses, and this providential day has many days and years in it. Now you are Retired from your task in the Pulpit, do you not see how like a drowning man you caught at every straw to uphold your Cause; but it sinks and falls before Christ's triumphant Word.  
But here is one broken Reed more you had to lean upon, your Fourth Argument.  
You said the Promises to the Observers of the Seventh-Day-Sabbath, and threaten against the Transgressor's of it, were transferred to the Firstday. But how did you go to prove it, not by Scripture which is profitable for Doctrine; but by Experience (O said you) Who are the People that are blessed in soul and in body and estate; but the conscientious Observers of the Firstday. But pray Sir, consider, Did not the Lord manifest himself once and again to Solomon at the High Place, and bless him in soul, body, estate, and all? Should he therefore conclude and say, The blessing is transferred from the place of Instituted Worship to the forbidden High-Place; and therefore that is to be gone to; when there is an express word of the Lord transgressed in so doing. (if the Lord should not overlook sins in his People, when would he ever manifest himself to them) and for the judgements inflicted on those who had a conscience of sin in the profaning the day, and yet dareingly did it; there is no Argument in it; nay, you make the same thing an Argument against the Seventh-Day-Sabbath; for (said you) If the Seventh-Day-Sabbath be Observed, than the penalty against Transgressor's must be observed. Then (said you) we should have stoneing work in our streets. When as you had but one Scripture-instance of the executing the penalty on the Transgressor of the Law of the Sabbath, and it was done at the Word of Jehovah, the Judgement was the Lords, it should make you fear to offend and not fear to obey. And though that be such a  to fright off your Hearers from the Seventh-Day-Sabbath; yet you say, the transferring the Penalty from the Seventh Day to the First, is an Argument for the firstday being the Sabbath: But to let your Argument run upon its own feet, it will be thus, That Sabbath-day that has such a penalty Annexed to it, is not to be owned under the Gospel; but the penalty annexed to the Seventh-day, is transferred to the first day: Therefore the firstday is not to be owned for a Sabbath under the Gospel. Is not this your Position, and the natural Consequence? Does it not turn upon you?  
But I will not let you have the last word, therefore I will add this farther: Does not the Scripture Record the like punishing of transgressors of the rest of the Commands? must they therefore be Rejected? will you stand it out against the Lord, to escape his strokes? It will be hard for you to kick against the Goads: Therefore close in with him, by timely Repentance; and lay hold of his strength, and make peace with Him, and you shall make peace with Him. The Lord will not be trifled with, neither do I trifle with you: unless you give me a satisfactory Reply by Letter, or Answer my Objections one way or other, the next Firstday; you may Expect I will take some other Method to make my Objections known to your Hearers.  
From my House in East-Smithfield, at the Golden-Hart, 2d. Month 23d. at Evening. 82. W. Tovey.   

POSTSCRIT.  
THe 14th of the 3d. Month in the Morning, I caused several of these Letters, etc. to be given to Mr. Meads Hearers; but when he came to Preach in the Afternoon, I hear he took no Notice of my Arguments, but used several Raileries; And Paraphrasing upon my Trade, said, I called myself Gold Smith, but my Gold was Copper. But (although I did not call myself Goldsmith to him, yet that is my Calling, and my Gold is Standard) if it were Copper, why did he not lay it to the Touchstone of the Word, and make it Manifest? For, There things will appear in their true Colours. No— he would be excused from that Task, because I would not let Him have the last word in My Letter: But I think he is better skilled at Scoffing, than at trying Doctrines by the Word; else, Why did he use that old proverb, Who so bold, as blind Bayard? But I seriously commend that Old Scripture to his consideraiton, Isa. 42. 18, to the end,— Who Blind, but 〈◊〉 Servant? or Deaf, as my Messenger? etc.