An Answer To M. Cawdry's two Books of the Sabbath, Lately come forth.  
Wherein the Author doth two things: 1. He vindicates himself from Mr cawdry's unfriendly abuse of him, in fathering upon him three Texts of Scripture, and three Arguments deduced from them, to prove the perpetuity of the ancient Sabbath, which the Author doth in no case own. 2. He vindicates the fourth Commandment from M. Cawdry's false Exposition of it.  
Wherein the Author hath 1. Answered and confuted all that Mr Cawdry hath wrote to corrupt the sense and meaning of the Commandment. 2. He hath restored the ancient, genuine, and proper sense of the Commandment: and confirmed it by sundry undeniable Arguments.  
By Theophilus Brabourne.  Mat. 5 18, 19 
Until heaven and earth pass away, one jot, or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be least in the kingdom of heaven.  
London, Printed for William Franklin, and are to be sold at Norwich. 16●4.   

To the Reader.  
SAint Judas exhorts us, that we should earnestly contend for the truth, which was once delivered unto the Saints. And the Prophet Jeremiah complains of men in his time, who bent their tongues like Bows for lies: but they were not valiant or courageous for the Truth, Jer. 9.3. If ever St Jude's Exhortation was needful in the Church, it is now needful: when the truth, or true doctrine of the Sabbath, once delivered to the Saints, is so shamefully corrupted and abused. If ever there was a time when the Prophet Jeremiah's complaint was verified, now is the time: Do not men now, yea, Ministers, and of all ministers those accounted the most forward, hot, and zealous, do not these bend their tongues like bows for lies? And doth not Mr Cawdry appear in the front, by his three books of about twelve shillings price, though to little purpose? Whether these expositions of the fourth Commandment be truths or falsities, I leave my Reader to judge, after he hath read this little Book. They say, first, So be it we give God a day for his Sabbath, it matters not what day, be it Saturday or Sunday: As if God had never made choi●e of his day: They might as well say, So be it we have a man to dispense the Sacraments, it matters not what man, be he Minister or Layman. Secondly, They say, God did not command in his fourth Commandment the Sabbath day, as of a certain day definitely, but a Sabbath day, as of some uncertain day indefinitely; as if God delivered his Commandments in ambiguous terms, and doubtful words; as if no man could know by the Commandment what day God meant his people should keep for his Sabbath day. Thirdly, They say, by the ordinal word seventh in the fourth Commandment, we need not understand Saturday the seventh and last day of the week; but any one day of the s●ven, as Sunday the first day of the week; as if when God commanded the last day of the week we may understand him of the first day of the week. Fourthly, whereas God rested at the Creation on Saturday the seventh day for our imitation; they say, we may imitate God's example if we rest on Sunday the first day; as if we imitated God's example by crossing of it: for he rested at the end of the week, and we rest at the beginning of the week. Fifthly, They say, the fourth Commandment enjoined the Jews to keep Saturday; & the same fourth Commandment enjoins Christians to keep Sunday; as if one and the same Commandment should enjoins contrary things: as the Saturday, which they call Judaisme, and the Sunday, or Lords day, which they call their Christian Sabbath: and so it shall enjoin both Judaisme and Christia●isme: and so the fourth Commandment shall have one sense and meaning yesterday, and another this day: for thousands of years till Christ it shall have one expositition, as for Saturday; and for ever after Christ it shall have another exposition, as for Sunday. Now to make up the number of seven abominations Mr Cawdry will add two more as these ensuing. Sixthly, The Sabbath day and seventh day, mentioned in the fourth Commandment, are not the substance of the fourth Commandment, but one day in seven is the substance: as if the words expressed in the Commandment should be no substance, and yet one day in s●ven, which words are not expressed, should be the substance of it. Seventhly, The Sabbath day and seventh day, mentioned in the fourth Commandment are indirectly commanded, but one day of seven, of which there are no such words in the Commandment, and yet these are directly commanded, as he saith. Was there ever any of God's ten Commandments thus shattered by Jesuits? and thus wrung and wrested from the genuine and true sense intended by God? and yet these are the expositions given by the godly Ministers: Now may I not justly take up the Prophet Jeremiah's complaint of these so zealous Ministers, saying, They bend their tongues like Bows to publish false Expositions of God's fourth Commandment? The Lord threatened old Eli the Priest, saying, They that despise me shall be despised, 1 Sam. 2.30. And have not these Ministers despised God by corrupting the sense of one of his ten Commandments? And hath not God of late despised them? Never did God pour greater contempt upon Clergy men than in our days, wherein they are ashamed to wear black Coats, and turn into colours.  
These things premised, now I shall give my Reader an account how far I have answered Mr Cawdry's Books: He hath wrote three books of the Sabbath: the first part about seven years ago, the other two parts now lately; I do not undertake to answer all that he hath wrote, for many things he hath wrote, not against me, but in confutation of the Bishop of Eli, Doctor White's Book, which was an Answer unto my second Book of the Sabbath: and particularly against what I wrote in it, in maintenance of the ancient Sabbath: but granting what I wrote against the Lord's day Sabbath: And divers things he hath wrote against Dr Heyline, and against Master Primrose: Now I leave these things unto their proper Authors: I meddle with no more than with what he hath wrote against me, as touching the ancient Sabbath, and the Lordsday Sabbath: as touching these two I give this account.  
1. As touching the ancient Sabbath, I do not endeavour punctually to confute any of his Answers made to divers of my twenty four Arguments, left my books should be cmmitted to the fire, and I should offend the State: yet I have much ado to bridle myself so as to be silent in this quarrel: I only endeavour to vindicate myself from Mr Cawdry's unfriendly abuse of me, by fathering upon me the things I never wrote: and to vindicate God's fourth Commandment from his false Expositions of it; and my hope is, that the State will permit a man to do so much for God, and for himself.  
2. As for the Lords day sabbath, so called, but never so proved, I shall not here allege any Scriptures against it; nor confute any of Mr Cawdry's replies, made by him, to my answers which I made to their several Texts of Scripture alleged for the Lords day, nor shall I need: for Mr Cawdry hath rather replied to the answers of the Bishop of Ely, to Dr Heyline, and to Mr Primrose, than to my answers: and yet he hath carried it on so cunningly, as his Reader cannot but think he hath confuted Mr Brabourne also, and this must go among the Vulgar for an Answer to my Books; this is one piece of Mr Cawdry's Sophistry: he cannot be content to abuse me with fathering upon me falsely three Texts of Scripture: but also he must make the world believe that he hath answered my books against the Lordsday Sabbath, whereas he hath done no such thing: he hath indeed mentioned my name often, but never replied to my Answers: and if he hath mentioned any of them, instead of a Confutation he hath slightly passed by, and instead thereof he hath fall'n upon the Bishop, Dr Heyline, or Mr. Primrose; It is usual with most that write for the Lords day to have a fling at Mr B●abou ne; in one Page they among many things carp at some one, and twenty or thirty Pages after they carp at another; and perhaps fifty or sixty Pages after they carp at a third, and so much for confutation of M. Brabourne; thus have some done in their books from New-England, and many in their books in Old England; but none of them all dare undertake to confute all my Answers to their Texts: for I have given not only one Answer, but many Answers to every one of their Texts: So Mr Cawdry perhaps may stumble upon some one of my many Answers: but to go Text by Text, and confute all my Answers: answer by answer as is meet and reasonable, I have not yet seen it, nor do I believe that ever I shall see it: his wit in passing these things by in silence so slightly, is to me an Argument that he is at a nonplus, and therefore is feign to make a colour of an Answer, and to bluster among the people with the wind of three great books: so thinks  
Theoph. Brabourne.   

Mr Brabourne's vindication of himself from the unfriendly abuse of Mr Cawdry, fathering upon him no less than three Texts of Scripture, and three Arguments deduced from them, to prove the morality or perpetuity of the ancient s●venth-day-Saturday-Sabbath, the which things M. Brabourne doth in no case own.  

The words of Mr Cawdry.  
SEE Mr Cawdries book on the Sabbath, his third part, in p. 429, 430. thus writing: Of all that have wrote of this subject (to wit the Sabbath day) Mr. Brabourne is the largest, and hath the greatest show of Scripture and Reason for his opinion: and therefore in confuting him we shall easily confute all the rest; He hath produced five Texts of Scripture for himself, we consider their strength in order. Objection the first out of Gen. 2.3.  
The first is taken from Gen. 2.3. whence thus he argueth: An Ordinance given in the state of innocency, not peculiar to that state is perpetual. But by divine institution the seventh day was appointed to be the time of rest in Innocency, and not appropriated to that state. Ergo.  
To this Text, and to this Argument deduced from it, I answer; At my first reading them my heart risen against them, saying in myself, surely Mr Cawdry hath done me wrong: then I took my first book of the Sabbath, printed 1628. and sought among my twelve Arguments there for proof of the perpetuity of the ancient seventh-day-Sabbath, but there I could not find these things; then I sought in my second book of the Sabbath▪ printed 1632. among my twenty four Arguments for the ancient Sabbath, and there I could not find these things; Lastly, because I would make a through and full search, I spent some hours to turn over both my books page by page, but neither so could I find these things; wherefore I disclaim this first Text and Argument as none of mine.  
Mr Cawdry, in charging this, and two other Texts upon me, doth not say in which of my two books the Reader might find them; nor in which of my twelve or twenty four Arguments these things may be found, nor in what page they may be found, so the Reader is left to seek a needle in a bottle of hay; there are 238. pages in my former book, and 632. pages in my latter book, so it is not easy for any man to find a thing without direction, but it is too common with some Writers, in a weak cause, wittily, I might say wickedly, to omit the quotation of the book and page, and then to foist in what they please of their own, the easilier to deceive the Reader, to abuse the Author, and the better to gain credit to their weak cause, by begetting a sleighty opinion of their Adversary.   

The second Text.  
Mr Cawdry in the place fore cited, and page 430. thus writeth. Objection the second. The second place of Scripture is that of Exod. 31.16. where the Sabbath is called (An everlasting Covenant) and therefore it is still in force.  
To this Text, and the Argument deduced from it, I answer as before, that I have sought for these things in my first book, and in my twelve Arguments, and in my second book, and in my twenty four Arguments there for the seventh-day. Sabbath: for where else should I seek but among my Arguments for this Text and Argument? But there I find them not; yea, I have cursorily sought page by page in both my books, but yet I cannot find them; wherefore I disclaim them as none of mine.  
I yet remember, that before I printed my first book I had thoughts of this Text, Exod 31.16. where the Sabbath is called an Everlasting Covenant, but I than foresaw that I could not from these words frame a sound Argument to prove the perpetuity of the ancient Sabbath, because Circumcision is called an Everlasting Covenant also, wherefore I laid it aside; and will Mr Cawdry now father this weak Argument upon me? What can his end of it be but to render me, & the cause I have in hand, ridiculous and contemptible? To deceive his Reader? And to win vain applause to himself and his cause?   

The third Text.  
Mr Cawdry in the place first cited, and in page 430. thus writeth; Objection the third from Isa. 66.23. The third Text is Isa. 66.23. where the Prophet, speaking of the renewed state of the Church by Christ, saith, from month to month, and Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh should come to worship the Lord. To this Text he answereth, that the continuance and perpetuity of the Sabbath can no more be concluded hence than of the New Moons which are mentioned with the Sabbath, yet by himself granted to be abolished.  
I have sought among my twelve Arguments in one of my books, and my twenty four Arguments in my other book, but cannot find any where that I alleged this text to prove the perpetuity of the seventh day-Saturday-Sabbath; wherefore I disclaim this text also as none of mine, but of Mr Cawdry's own devising.  
As for his answer to it, doth Mr Cawdry think Mr Brabourne so rash in choosing a Text to prove the Sabbaths perpetuity, as to make choice of this text, where the Sabbath is not preferred above the New Moons for perpetuity? But Mr Cawdry, it seems, knew no better way to bring Mr Brabourne into contempt with his Reader, than to forge such shallow-brained things as this is, and then to father them upon Mr Brabourne.  
Having spoken of the three texts severally, now I shall speak of them jointly; Mr Cawdry placeth these his, and not mine, three texts in the front, before my two texts which I own (of which too by and by) here I note his sophistry and carnal policy, hoping by the weakness of these three Texts, and my arguing so weakly from them, to bring me and my two texts following into a weak estimation with his Reader, that so he may think there is no more strength of Argument in my two following texts, than is in the three texts going before.   

The fourth and fifth Texts.  
S●e Mr Cawdry in page 431. thus writing: Objection the fourth. The fourth is taken out of the New Testament, Mat. 5.17, 18. where our Saviour ratifies the moral Law, the Decalogue till the end of the world; whence thus he argueth: If every jot and tittle of the Law be in force until the world's end, than these letters and words, the seventh day is the Sabbath, are in force until the world's end. But the former is true by the Text alleged Mat. 5.17, 18. Ergo, etc.  
Objection the fifth. The last Text is Mat. 24.20. whence thus he argues: Their destruction was forty years after Christ's death, yet he bids them pray that their flight might not be in the winter, nor on the Sabbath day; and therefore Christ foresaw that the Sabbath day should be in force still, and kept after his death.  
These two texts indeed I own for mine, and the substance of the two Arguments deduced from them, though but unhandsomely laid down by Mr Cawdry; now let the Reader judge whether there be not better force of proof in these two texts than there was in the three texts set before them in the front, on purpose to disgrace me and these two texts.  
As for the Text Mat. 5.17, 18. I allow it as Mr Cawdry hath laid it down. As for the other text, Mat: 24.20. Pray that your flight be not on the Sabbath day; this flight was to be at the destruction of Jerusalem, about fifty years after Christ's death; whence I thus argue, that Chr●st allowed of the ancient Sabbath as a Christian Ordinance in the Church, all times of the Gospel after his death; and had it been a dying Ceremony, as many fancy, Christ would not have bidden Christians to pray to God to prevent their profanation of it, for this had been a profanation of the sacred duty of Prayer; as if a Papist should pray not to travel on Christmas day.  
Having by these two Texts proved the perpetuity of the ancient seventh day, and Saturday-Sabbath, it will be expected by my Reader that I should confute Mr Cawdry's answers to them; which thing I profess I can easily do without much study; but no provocations shall make me go beyond the bounds I have set to myself; I have resolved to handle but two things: the one is to vindicate myself from the abuse of the three forged Texts: the other is to vindicate God's fourth Commandment from Mr Cawdry's false glosses, and corrupt Expositions of it, saying, God commanded not the seventh day in order, but one day in the seven without order; and by this false Exposition he makes his answer to many of my twenty four Arguments.  
My hope is that as our State do allow liberty of Conscience to some in some cases, so they will allow me a liberty in these two things: first, to vindicate myself from slanders. Secondly, to vindicate Gods fourth Commandment from false Expositions. I dare not go farther lest I should offend the State, and have my books burnt; one Mr Ockford about two years past wrote a book in defence of my way against the Lord's day, and for the old day the seventh day, but, as saith Mr Cawdry, it was answered by fire, being ordered to be burnt; as I remember Mr Tyndals' Translation of the New Testament long since was ordered to be burnt too; and was not Pa●eus on the Romans burned also in King James his days? And I fear me so it would be with this my book if I should exceed my bounds; Let not therefore Mr Cawdry think, that I do not reply to his answers because I cannot, but because I dare not; if I durst, and had but this fair dealing, to have the Press as open to me as it is to him, he should soon see that I would make his weakness in arguing to appear unto all men. I had rather be engaged in this quarrel than go to my dinner or supper. When two Soldiers are to fight, the odds is too great, to give all encouragements and conveniences to the one, and bind the hands of the other behind him, or hold a cudgel over his head if he strikes a blow; it is my unhappy condition to suffer this odds, to have the fire prepared for my books, and the benefit of the Press denied me, unless I Print by stealth. So far for vindication of myself: and now for the vindication of the fourth Commandment.  

Of the vindication of God's fourth Commandment.  
Before I fall close upon this point, I shall premise five things tending to the vindication of this Commandment.  
1. What may be the reason of Mr Cawdry's wresting these words in the fourth Commandment; The seventh day is the Sabbath, from the proper sense of the ordinal number seventh? which signifies not only one of seven, but more, as the l●st of seven, and that single one which follows the six dries labour; and why would he instead of this bring in one day of seven indefinitely?  
His  reason I believe is this, that having no precept for the Lords day in the New Testament, and none but poor probable reasons ab exemplo, therefore he would feign incorporate the Lords day into the fourth Commandment to strengthen it: so it having no legs of its own to stand on, he would be so friendly to it, as to borrow a pair of legs from the fourth Commandment, and then it shall be able to stand in the opinion of the deluded multitude. As for his Arguments ab exemplo, from example, as is the supposed practice of the Apostles, however it go current in the Pulpit, yet Sir, if you know it not, let me inform you, that an Argument ab exemplo in Disputation is next unto nothing, try it when you will.  
For my part, if it could be proved that the Lords day had a divine institution, which I never saw proved, nor hath Mr Cawdry proved it in any or all of his three larger Volumes on the Sabbath; I say, if it could be proved to be set up by Christ or his Apostles, yet I stiffly deny it to be commanded in the fourth Commandment, for the Lords day is called in Scripture the first d●y of the week, but the fourth Commandment is f●r the seventh and last day of the week; and the Lords day was not known when the fourth Commandment was given on mount Sinai.  
If, as you say, Christ did institute the Lord's day, is not Christ's institution and authority sufficient for it, but that you must run unto the Old Testament, the fourth Commandment for a Law and Commandment for it? Christ hath instituted two new Sacraments, Baptism and the Lords Supper; now, is not Christ's institution and authority sufficient to uphold them, but that we must run to the Old Testament as unto the Laws and Commandments for Circumcision and the Passeover? saying, our two Sacraments stand by force of the two Laws in the Old Testament. So if Christ had set up a third new Ordinance, as the Lords day, what need we to run further than the New Testament, and then to Christ's institution and authority for it.  
But you will say, Circumcision and the Passeover are Ceremonials, but the fourth Commandment is Moral. I answer, if the fourth Commandment be moral, than the time there commanded is moral too: and moral things are not alterable: one jot or tittle shall not pass from the Law so long as heaven and earth last, Mat. 5.18.  
It is a sign the cause is naught, when the Authors of it are so put to their shifts, and to use their wits, as to run such strange and unusual courses, as to run from the New Testament to the Old Testament, and that for a new Ordinance: yea, and also to wrest the proper sense of the fourth Commandment, as if it were a nose of wax, to be bowed on this side at one time, and on the other side at another time: to command the Saturday for thousands of years until Christ, and the Sunday, or Lords day for ever after Christ.  
2. I shall premise another thing, which is a distinction of Mr Cawdries, saying, in his second part, page 255. The old world had the last day of the week, the new world the first day of the week. Now by the old world he means the Church of the Jews before Christ, and by the new world the Christian Church since Christ; and both these have their several days from this one fourth Commandment; now this is a Popish distinction in its application: for Papists say of the second Commandment, that it forbade Images indeed to the Jews, that is, to the old world, but not unto Christians, that is, to the new world: and so saith Mr Cawdry, the fourth Commandment was for the last day of the week to the Jews of the old world, but it is n●t so to Christians of the new world, for it commands us the first day of the week; might he not as well say, Protestants are bound by the fifth Commandment to honour their Parents; and by the same Commandment Papists are bound to honour the Pope, but not their Parents? Never did Jesuits more abuse the second Commandment, than Mr Cawdry doth the fourth Commandment.  
3. I shall premise this also; that Mr Cawdry saith in his second part, page 255. That the seventh day in order was not the substance of the fourth Commandment. In his third part, page 418. He saith, The ground of all the Sabbatarian error is, that they take for granted, that the seventh-day-Saturday-Sabbath was commanded as the substance of the fourth Commandment; we agree with them in this, that if it be so we must turn Anabaptist●, who keep no day, or Sabbatarians, to keep the seventh day with the Jews; but this is their mistake, etc. And in p. 259. of his second part he saith, one day in seven is the substance of the fourth Commandment.  
To this I answer, First, if these words, The seventh day is the Sabbath, be not the substance of the fourth Commandment, how can h●s words, one day in seven, be the substance of the Commandment? Are they not both spoken of the time? If the one be the substance, than the other i● a substance also; and if that which is not expressed in the Commandment, as one day in seven, be the substance of it, than much rather must these words, the seventh day, which are expressed in the Commandment, be the substance of the Commandment.  
2. For this word substance, it is not used here properly; for it hath neither Circumstance nor Accident in the fourth Commadement; the substance is the duty of rest from labour, and the worship of God; the time is the Circumstance. Besides, few Readers understand what substance and accident are; wherefore I would require Mr Cawdry to forbear this word substance, and state the question by some other word which is proper, and which every Reader may understand, as to use the word commanded; for we speak of one of God's Commandments, and of a day or time commanded; which also will avoid strife between the disputants about the word substance, it being liable to be used sometime in one sense, sometime in another; Now, if you use the word commanded, than Mr Cawdry must say, The seventh day was not commanded, but one day of seven was commanded; both which are manifestly f●lse: for the seventh day was expressly commanded in so many words, saying, The seventh day is the Sabbath, in it thou shalt not do any work; but one day of seven was not commanded or expressed in the fourth Commandment; So now Sir, they are your own words, you must turn Anabaptist, keeping no day, or Sabbatarian, keeping the Saturday-Sabbath with the Jews, now take your choice,  
4. I shall premise this also; Mr Cawdry saith in his second part, page 257. In like manner we suppose it may be said, that the fourth Commandment saith, Thou shalt sanctify one day of seven at God's appointment, that is, in particular, God appointed the last day of seven to the old world, and the first day of seven to the new world.  
To this I answer; H●re he makes one day of seven to be the genus, whereas those words be not where expressed in the fourth Commandment, nor are gatherable by consequence; and then he makes the last day of seven, the Saturday, and the first day of seven, the Sunday to be the two species; the former appointed by God to the Jews in the fourth Commandment, the latter appointed by God to Christians in or by the fourth Commandment also; but is it not strange, that  
1. God should appoint two several dai●s by one single Commandment, and never to express any more than one? For the fourth Commandment mentions but one day singularly, not days plurally; as the Sabbath day, not days: and the seventh day, not days, Exod. 10 8, etc.  
2. Is it not strange, that in one and the same Commandment, and in the very same words, God should appoint both a Jewish and a Christian Sabbath? And the one to be kept in memory of the Creation, the other of the Redemption? But such things are nothing strange to Mr Cawdry.  
3. Is it not strange, that God should appoint to the Jews their seventh-day-Sabbath at the giving of the Law on mount Sinai, and at the same time, and in the same words, without any difference making, appoint the Lords day to Christians, a day not known then to the Jews, nor to have any being or beginning, for thousands of years after, till Christ came? This Lord's day was hidden so secretly in the fourth Commandment, that had not Mr Cawdry stepped up of late, by his more than ordinary wit and skill in Logic, to search and find it out for us in the fourth Commandment, we should never have thought of such a Jewel locked up in the fourth Commandment; I marvel he hath not found also the Sacrament of Baptism to be appointed by God in Circumcision, and secretly locked up in the old Law for Circumcision: and our Lord's Supper to be appointed by G●d for us Christians in the Passeover, and closely hidden in the old Law for the Passeover, and then, and there commanded to us; though these were ceremonial, yet our Christian Sacraments in them might be moral or perpetual.  
4. Is it not strange, that Law and Gospel both should be comprised in one Commandment, and in one and the same words without any difference made by God? Did God want words that he must express differing things in one and the same word? had not Mr Cawdry found out this mystery, I must profess, I should have been deeply ignorant of it; now, the old Sabbath day was Law, and a part of the Law and Decalogue: and the feigned Lords day in the fourth Commandment was Gospel, it being kept in memory of our Redemption by Christ; so there was both Law and Gospel commanded by God in the fourth Commandment, according to Mr Cawdry; these things considered, is not Gods fourth Commandment shamefully abused by Mr Cawdry? and is it not high time to vindicate it?  
5. I shall premise another thing; Mr Cawdry in his second part, page the 255, 257, 256, 265. saith, that one day in seven is directly commanded in the fourth Commandment; but the seventh day is indirectly commanded in the fourth Commandment; now I suppose that is said to be directly which is expressed in words; and that indirectly which is gathered from the words by consequence of reason, and so Mr Cawdry understands it, saying in page 255. expressly and directly, both words of the same sense; and in Page 259. not directly but by consequence.  
To this I answer; Is it not strange Sir, that you should say, one day of seven is directly commanded, when these words, one day in seven, are not to be found in the fourth Commandment? And to say these words The seventh day, which are expressed, are but indirectly, and by consequence commanded? Surely, if any thing be indirectly in the fourth Commandment it must be one in seven, because these words are not in the Commandment. In the fifth Commandment the thing directly and expressly commanded is, to honour our natural Parents: but to honour Magistrates is indirectly, and by consequence commanded, it not being expressed; why you should so cross a received distinction seems a Paradox to me.  
These five things I have premised, and now I come a little closer to the work, as Mr Cawdry leads me on: and thus he gins to defend One day in seven to be the true sense and meaning of the fourth Commandment, and that it is no paradoxal exposition of it.  
To hold one day of seven is the sense of the fourth Commandment is not a Paradox.    

His first instance.  
Mr Cawdry in his second part, p. 257. gives for instance the place of God's worship, Deut. 12.5, 11. where it is said to this effect: Ye shall offer all your sacrifices only in the place which the Lord shall choose; and the place chosen by God afterward, was first the Tabernacle, and after it the Temple; now it is evident that this precept did not enjoin them directly to offer their Sacrifices at the Tabernacle; or at the Temple, but only indirectly. In like manner it may be said of the time of God's worship; the fourth Commandment saith, Thou shalt sanctify one day of seven at God's appointment, as the last day of seven to the old world, and the first day of seven to the new world, but neither of them directly by the fourth Commandment, but indirectly.  
To this I answer. 1. These cases are not alike: for as touching the place of God's worship, Deut 12. it was commanded only in general or indefinitely, not naming any particular place; and so both Tabernacle and Temple were indirectly commanded as by consequence; but as for the time of God's worship, Exod. 20.8, etc. it was not commanded in general or indefinitely, but in particular and definitely, naming the seventh day the particular and definite time; and this is not indirectly, but directly and expressly commanded.  
2. The cases are unlike in this, that as for the place of God's worship, after God had indefinitely commanded it, Deut. 12. it was sufficiently known to be afterwards the Tabernacle and the Temple, no man questioning it; but as for the Lords day, or first day of the new world, considered as a Sabbath of divine institution, hath been denied by many learned and godly Divines, whose names and words I have mentioned in my second book of the Sabbath, Pag. 264, etc. as Peter Martyr, Brentius, Calvin, Z●nchie, Vrsinus, Pareus, Chemnitius, Dr. Prideaux, Zuinglius, Melanchton, Hemingius, Bastingius, Mr tindal, and Mr Fryth two godly Martyrs with others there named, and many more I could name, if it were needful, all of them holding and writing that the Lords day is but an indifferent thing, and of the same authority with Christmas day, St Mathews day, and the other Holy days of the Church; To these I may add that since I wrote my second book of the Sabbath, I have seen near twenty books lately printed all against the Lords-day-Sabbath▪ so it is not so clea●e a case among us that the Lords day, the first day of the wee●e, or the first day o● the new world, is appointed by God, for the time of God's worship, as it was clear to the Jews, that the Tabernacle or Temple was appointed of God for the place of his worship; yea, at this day among ourselves it is a controversy to know which d●y is the Sabbath day, the S●turday or the Sunday.  
3. Whereas you say Sir, The fourth Commandment saith, Thou shalt sanctify one day of seven. This is false: if no man had the ten Commandments but yourself, you might say what you list, as you do; but being all men have them as well as yourself, no man will believe you so long as they read no such words in the Commandments: or if you take it for granted before you have proved it, as here you do, that your wo●ds are the sense and meaning of the fourth Commandment, than you do but sophistically beg the question.  
Thus you have seen that this first instance proves nothing; for it shows not that one day of seven may be the sense and meaning of the fourth Commandment, nor that you, Sir, are freed from a Paradox in saying the fourth Commandment enjoins one day of seven.   

His second instance.  
Mr Cawdry in page 258. thus writeth; We shall give light to our assertion by comparing the time of worship, and the worship it self: comparing the fourth Commandment with the second Commandment; the second Commandment doth not directlly and expressly command the particular services, as Sacrifices, Circumcision, the Passeover, etc. yet all these fall under the general Obligation of the second Commandment by way of consequence, as speciales to a general: The like may be said of the services of the New Testament Baptism and the Lords Supper, etc. and these services are reduced to the general morality of the second Commandment; just so (we think) it is in the fourth Commandment; the special day, the seventh day, was not directly and expressly commanded in the fourth Commandment, no, nor the Lord's day, yet both fell under the Obligation of the fourth Commandment as specials to a general. To this I answer.  
1. Supposing, but not granting, that Sacrifices, etc. Baptism, and the Lords Supper were commanded in the general in the second Commandment, yet the Saturday-seventh-day-Sabbath, and the Lords day were not both commanded in the general in the fourth Commandment.  
As for the Lords day it was not thought on at the giving of the Law on mount Sinai in the wilderness, how should it then be commanded in the fourth Commandment? Nor can it be understood in the fourth Commandment, for this is for the day called by its proper name (as shall hereafter appear) Sabbath day; Remember the Sabbath day, now the fourth Commandment binds to Saturday, properly called Sabbath day, cannot bind to Sunday, or Lords day, the day following.  
Again the fourth Commandment saith, The seventh day is the Sabbath, which is Saturday the last day of the week, but the Lords day is Sunday the first day, and beginning of the week following; now how should a bond of one hundred pound to be paid on the seven●h day of May be understood to bind to the day following the eighth day of May without a forfeiture of the Bond? Or a bond to be paid on Saturday the seventh day of the week, but to be forfeited if it be not paid till Sunday after the fi●st day of the next week? When the fourth Commandment binds to the seventh and last day of the week, it cannot bind to the first day of the week, the Lords day; so you see that the Lords day was not commanded in the fourth Commandment in the general, no more than in the particular.  
Now as for the Saturday-seventh-day-Sabbath, this indeed was commanded in the fourth Commandment, but not generally, as is supposed, comprising under it Saturday and Sunday, both as specials: for Saturday the seventh day was no general but a special, single, and individual day, as is granted me, But I suppose Mr Cawdry understands his one day in seven to be the general, and Saturday and Sunday the specials; but to expound the fourth Commandment of one day in seven is a false Exposition, and as yet Mr Cawdry hath not proved it to be the sense and meaning of the fourth Commandment; yet here and before he takes it for granted, and supposeth one day of seven to be the genus or general of the fourth Commandment; but this his supposition is but petitio principii, a begging of the question of me before he ha●h proved it.  
Thus you have seen by my answer, that Mr Cawdry hath not by his second instance vindicated himself from this Paradox in expounding the fourth Commandment for one day of seven; nor hath he proved that the fourth Commandment may be expounded for one day of seven.  
2. Whereas Mr Cawdry makes Sacrifices, and the Passeover, Baptism, and the Lords Supper to be specials, under the general Obligation of the second Commandment, what doth he but mingle Ceremonials with Morals? And so confound the moral and the ceremonial Laws; making Sacrifices, Circumcision, and Passeover to be commanded in the moral Law, as in the second Commandment? methinks Sir, it beseems not a Divine of your rank thus to jumble together Morals and Ceremonials. 2 Sacrifices and the Passover were Gospel, I say. Gospel vailed under shadows, typing out Christ; Baptism and the Lords Supper are Gospel also, pointing to Christ; now Sir, will you mingle Law and Gospel's together? Saying, Sacrifices, and the Passeover, Baptism, and the Lords Supper fall under the Obligation of the second Commandment? Will you confound Law and Gospel? for the second Commandment is Law, and a part of the moral Law; now to thrust these Evangelicall things into the second Commandment, is to jumble together the Law and the Gospel; I confess, you may as well thrust and crowd the Lords day into the fourth Commandment as you may crowd Baptism and the Lords Supper into the second Commandment, but both are but Carter-like done.  
3. Whereas Mr Cawdry in this instance, and in two or three passages of his before, makes the Saturday, and the Sunday or Lords day to be species, or specials under the genus or general of one day in seven in the fourth Commandment; how can he make this Logic good? Suppose we that his one day of seven were the genus, since all Logicians know that the genus must have two species at least, these two days cannot be the species: for during the old world, as he calls it, until Christ the fourth Commandment, under one day of seven, had but one species, namely, the Saturday-seventh-day-Sabbath as himself confesseth oftentimes, and since Christ, if the Lords day be a Sabbath, as he says, and be also packed, or patched, I may rather say, into the fourth Commandment, yet then from Christ's time unto our times there hath been but one species under his genus, of one day in seven in the fourth Commandment, as the Sunday or Lords day; now, how can Mr Cawdry make his one day of seven to be a genus, when it ever wanted two species? As both before Christ, and since Christ; his divinity, in expounding the fourth Commandment for one day of seven, is like his Logic in making a genus to subsist with but one single species.   

His third instance.  
Mr Cawdry in page 260. thus writeth; in Levit. 27.30. All the tithes or tenths of the land are the Lords, etc. The tenth of the Flocks which passeth under the rod shall be the Lords; Where it is not necessary to take it for the tenth in order, but for any part of the ten. Also Leu. 23.13. Two tenth deals of flower, and a fourth part of an hin of oil; here any part of the ten, or any part of the four is as much as this Law requires. So the seventh day mentioned in the fourth Commandment doth not necessarily signify the seventh day in order, but may signify a seventh day, or one day in the seven. So this is sufficient to take off the aspersion of novelty from our interpretation and exposition of the fourth Commandment, and to show it to be consonant to the Language of the Scripture.  
To this I say, whereas in expounding the fourth Commandment I do insist upon the ordinal word seventh, holding myself close to the propriety of it, which notifies properly (as hereafter shall appear) not any one of the seven, but the last of the seven, and that single one which next follows the sixth. As when we say, the seventh year of the King's Reign, we mean not one of the seven indefinitely, that is, any one of the seven, but the last year of the seven, that which follows next after his sixth years Reign. A bond to be paid the seventh day of March is not to be paid upon one of the seven days of March indefinitely, that is, upon any one day of the seven, but definitely upon the seventh day from the first day of March; the like may be said of the eighth day for Circumcision, and of the fourteenth day for the Passeover, and of other ordinal numbers which in our English tongue end with th'. Now Mr Cawdry, to overthrow this propriety of the ordinal number seventh, brings in this his instance of another ordinal number, the tithe, or tenth. Hereunto I answer.  
1. Whereas Mr Cawdry would understand by the Tithe or tenth, not the tenth in order, but for any one of the ten indefinitely; hereby as he would overturn Gods definite and fixed time, so he doth an evil office to himself, and to the rest of the Clergy for matter of Tithes; for if the Shepherd hath in his Flock a blind or lame Lamb, a sick or lean Lamb, may he not give the Minister for tithe his blind Lamb, sick or lean Lamb? And if the Minister thinks himself wronged, may not the Shepherd plead Scripture to him? Saying, by the tithe or tenth God might enjoin one of ten, that is, any one of the ten indefinitely. Mr Cawdry would be loath the Sheppheard should so expound Scripture to him, and yet he will so expound the fourth Commandment to us, understanding by the seventh day any one day of the seven.  
Again, God commanded Circumcision to be on the eighth; were Mr Cawdry to expound this Commandment he could say by the eighth day may be understood any one of the eight days. The Passeover on the fourteenth day, he could expound this ordinal fourteenth so, as they might eat it on any one of the fourteen days.  
2. Though there is not any Commandment in the New Testament for the Lords day, yet let us suppose one made by Christ, saying, Remember the Lords day to sanctify it; but the first day of the week is the Lords day, etc. If I should answer to this Commandment as Mr Cawdry doth to God's fourth Commandment, saying, the word fi●st is an ordinal number indeed, but by the first day of the week, or first day of the seven, we may understand one day of the week, or one day of the seven indefinitely; for ordinal numbers, as the tenth of the Flock, and a tenth deal of flower, are so used in Scripture; how would Mr Cawdry and our new Sabbatarians exclaim of me for corrupting the proper sense of this new Commandment of Christ's? and for beguiling them of their new Sabbath day? And yet thus they deal with God, and with his fourth Commandment, and no man may controul● them without some heavy Censure or other, for I run more hazard for maintaining the true exposition of God's Commandment than they do for corrupting it.  
3. Be it so, that some few, as two or three ordinal numbers in Scripture be used improperly: for Io. 21.14. This is the third time that Jesus appear, etc. if this third time of Christ's apparition may be upon some one of the three times only, and not on the last of the three, how shall we do for our new Sabbath on the Lord's day? for Christ's apparitions be brought to prove our new Sabbath. Again, Christ risen the third day, may this be expounded of, one of, or of any of the three days? further I answer.  
1. That this particular ordinal number the seventh mentioned in the fourth Commandment, is never used in Scripture but properly for the last of seven. As for o●her ordinal numbers, some two or three, as the tenth of the Flock, and a fourth part of a hin of oil, etc. these are used improperly, but there are an hundred Texts of ordinalls, all used properly for one or two used improperly.  
2. Where an ordinal number is used improperly, it is so understood in a case of necessity only, when it cannot possibly be otherwise understood; as when the things numbered have in them neither difference, nor order, as a fourth part of an hin of oil, and a tenth deal of flower; in such a case we must understand them improperly as for any one of the number: so when Christ is called a doo●e, and the bread his body, we must take them improperly, but not always in all texts so: for the proper sense is ever holden for the true sense, if nothing appear to the contrary; now there is no necessity to departed from the proper sense of the ordinal seventh in the fourth Commandment; for among the seven days there is both difference and order, one orderly going after another; wherefore this ordinal seventh must be properly understood for Saturday the last of seven; and so the Church of the Jews understood it, as appears by their practice, keeping the Saturday Sabbath, now at Amsterdam, and elsewhere; but this I shall at our conclusion more abundantly prove, as that God intended in his fourth Commandment to have only the Saturday and last day of seven definitely for his Sabbath.  
Thus you see his third and last instance answered; and as yet he hath not vindicated himself from his Paradox, nor proved that the fourth Commandment may be expounded for a seventh day, or for one day of seven indefinitely, that is, for any one day of the seven.  
By the way note, that I have propounded his three instances in their full strength, as himself wrote them; the like faithfulness I shall observe in repeating his ensuing Arguments; And though they be but trivial things, yet I have, and shall answer every one of them punctually, although he hath not been so candid towards me; for he hath not so much as mentioned, much less confuted my best answers against the Lord's day▪ if my things were as trivial as his, yet since he undertakes to confute me, it had been the part of a fair disputant to mention and confute my answers, or else never to meddle with my name and Books, and so I return.  
Now he proceeds by sundry Arguments that the seventh day, or last day of the seven, is not enjoined in the fourth Commandment, but one day of the seven indefinitely; we shall answer them in order.   

His first Argument.  
Mr Cawdry in his second part, page 261. thus reasoneth: If the order of the day (first or last) in the fourth Commandment be not substantially profitable, or being altered is no ways prejudicial to Religion, than the seventh day was not commanded as the subject or substance of the fourth Commandment.  
But the order of the day, (first, or last, or any other) is not substantially profitable; or being altered is it any ways prejudicial to Religion.  
Therefore the seventh day in order was not commanded as the subject or substance of the fourth Commandment.  
I answer first to the first proposition, and to the consequent part of it, saying, Then the seventh day was not commanded as the subject or substance of the fourth Commandment; To this I say, the seventh day is time and order; now time and order are neither subject nor substance, but adjunct, accident, or circumstance; now if I should grant your conclusion, what were I the worse, or you the better by this Argument? For though the seventh day be not commanded as the subject or substance, yet if it be commanded as an adjunct to the duty of holiness, or God's worship, or as an accident or circumstance, it is binding to obedience: for it is a commanded adjunct, accident, or circumstance.  
I answer now to the second proposition, and to the former part of it, saying, The order of the day, as the last day of seven, is not substantially profitable: To this I say, 1. What if it be not substantially profitable, if it be circumstantially profitable? Is not this as much as can be expected of a commanded time? furthermore, if one day of seven, that is, any one of seven, be substantially profitable, as you Sir say, why should not the seventh and last day of the seven be also substantially profitable? Is not the seventh day one day of the seven?  
I answer next to the latter part, saying, The seventh day being altered, it is not any ways prejudicial to Religion. To this I say, 1. If this alteration be not prejudicial to Religion, that is, to God's worship in the day, yet it is prejudicial to God, and to his fourth Commandment; for i● it not prejudicial to God to have his holy day, and the day chosen by him before all other days of the seven, to be altered and changed, and so rejected?  
Again, suppose the alteration of the seventh day be no damage to Religion and God's worship in the day; so say I, the taking up of another day for it, as the Lords day, the first day of the week, this is no gain or advantage to Religion and God's worship; now will any wise man make a change of any thing if it be not for a better? It is the p●●t of a fool to change one Penny for another, or one Counter for another, both being alike. Furthermore, the alteration of the seventh day is as prejudicial to Religion, as the setting up of the first day is advantageous to Religion; and therefore the seventh day may be as well the substance of the Commandment as the first day.  
Again, is it not prejudicial to change the seventh day, which hath a divine institution and precept for it, and God's example in resting on that day, for the Lords day, or first day, which hath no divine institution or precept for it, nor Christ's example in resting on this day? For Christ made the Lord's day a travelling day, and so did two of his Disciples, travelling sixty furlongs to Emmaus, and back again to Jerusalem, which is fifteen miles, eight Furlongs to a mile, Luk. 24.1, 23, 29, 33. Joh. 20.19. this is more than a Sabbath day's journey.  
To conclude, give me leave Sir, to retort your Argument against yourself on this manner.  
If one day of seven indefinitely be not substantially profitable: or being altered is no way prejudicial to Religion; then one day of seven was not commanded as the subject or substance of the fourth Commandment.  
But one of seven indefinitely is not substantially profitable: or being altered to the seventh day definitely, it is no way prejudicial to Religion.  
Therefore one day of seven was not commanded as the subject or substance of the fourth Commandment. My answers to his Argument will clear this Argument; so far of his first Argument.   

His second Argument.  
If the seventh day was directly commanded as the subject or substance of the fourth Commandment, than it was commanded as Ceremonial, or as Moral.  
But the seventh day was neither commanded as Ceremonial, nor as Moral.  
Therefore the seventh day was not commanded at all in the fourth Commandment.  

Answer.  
I have heard Country people say, Scholars can by Logic prove the Moon was made of a green cheese; now is not Mr Cawdry such a Logician? for his conclusion saith, The seventh day was not commanded at all in the fourth Commandment, when with our eyes we see and read the contrary in the Commandment.  
Further I answer, whereas he thinks there is no third thing besides Moral and Ceremonial, I give him this for a third thing, a perpetual positive; and than though the seventh day was not commanded as Moral or Ceremonial, yet it might be commanded as a perpetual positive Ordinance.  
Here again Sir give me leave to retort your Argument upon yourself on this manner.  
If one day of seven indefinitely was directly commanded as the subject or substance of the fourth Commandment, than it was commanded as Ceremonial or as Moral.  
But one day of seven indefinitely was neither commanded as Ceremonial, nor as Moral; for there are no such words in the fourth Commandment as one day in seven; neither can they be gathered by consequence from it: and to suppose it is but to beg the question.  
Therefore one day of seven was not commanded at all in the fourth Commandment.  
If the seventh day, which is expressed in the fourth Commandment, be not commanded as the subject of the fourth Commandment, how should one day of seven, which is not expressed be the subject of it? And if there be no such thing in the fourth Commandment as one day of seven indefinitely, than it is neither Moral, nor Ceremonial, but a fantasy of man's brain.    

His third Argument.  
If the principal reasons in the fourth Commandment be directly for one day in seven, and indirectly for that seventh and last day of the we●ke; then the fourth Commandment must rather be understood of the number, for one day in seven, then for the order, the last day of seven.  
But the reasons are directly for one day in seven, and indirectly for that seventh and last day of seven, as being the day then appointed, Ergo etc.  

Answer.  
I see all along hitherto that Mr Cawdry sticks much at this ordinal number seventh in the fourth Commandment, and will nor endure this word order; it seems to me he had rather be out of order than in order, fearing that God's order may make him turn Jew and keep the Saturday-Sabbath: for rather than he will admit of God's order, the ordinal seventh, which implies the days put into order, he will invent an Exposition of his own, which is without order, as one day of seven.  
Furthermore, I have this one thing against his Argument, that he disputes comparatively, noted by the word rather, when he should dispute absolutely, and positively; for our question is not whether the fourth Commandment must rather b● expounded of one day in seven than of the seventh day; but absolutely and positively whether it ought to be expounded of the seventh day, or not of the seventh day; or whether it ought to be expounded of the seventh day, or of one day in seven, uncertainely which day; wherefore Sir, I desire you to take home this Argument again, and frame it anew, and see then if you can make any thing or nothing of it.  
I have yet another thing against this Argument; whereas you do compare these two together, one day of seven and the seventh day, saying, the one must rather be taken than the other; here you compare ens with non ens; a thing which hath a being in the fourth Commandment, as the seventh day expressed, with that which hath no being in the fourth Commandment, as one day of seven indefinitely, which is neither expressed nor implied, but is a mere fiction of your own; remember Sir, that this is the place where you are to prove, if you can, that one day of seven indefinitely, that is, any one day of the seven is the sense and meaning of the fourth Commandment; but instead of proving it, you slightly take it for granted you in a comparison rather, etc. and is not this petere principium, plainly to beg the question? for the comparative degree doth suppose the positive as granted; As for the B●shop, Dr H●ylin, and Mr Primrose, you often tax some of them for begging the question, and are you, Sir, so frequent in the use of this piece of Sophistry? This is not the first time I have taken you guilty, nor will it be the last time.  
Again, whereas you say, the reasons in the fourth Commandment are directly for one day in seven, and but indirectly for the seventh day.  
1. Is it not strange that what is expressed should be indirectly in the Commandment, and what is not expressed should be directly in it?  
2. As for the two reasons mentioned by him, the farmer is the six day's labour, whereby God persuades us to give him the seventh day, because he hath allowed us six days for ourselves; now forasmuch as our six day's labour must go together in labour, therefore this reason must be for the seventh and last day, not for one day of seven, or any one day of seven: for the six labouring days going together, these are the reasons; now a reason cannot prove itself but another thing.  
The latter reason, mentioned by him in page 268. and page 42. is Gods example in resting the seventh day, which example leads us to the seventh day also, not unto one day of the seven indefinitely: for examples lead us to follow them as nearly, as closely, and as exactly as we can, as Copies set to Scholars, and Samplers for Girls to sew by; and so Moses was to make the Tabernacle after the pattern which God shown him in the Mount, Exod. 25.40. now we then imitate God, and follow his example wh●n we keep the seventh and last day of the week, for it is as near to God as possibly we can come; so you see the reasons of the Commandment are plainly for the seventh day only.  
But Mr Cawdry would have one day, or any one day of the seven for his Sabbath, and is this to imitate God? Or rather to cross God? For when God rested on the seventh and last day of the week we will rest on the first day, at the beginning of the week, and yet not ashamed to say we imitate God, and follow his Example; yet, but saith Mr Cawdry, God rest d one day of seven, and if we do so we imitate God. I Sir, but do you imitate God as nearly, as closely, and as exactly as you can, or as is possible? And as Scholar's do, or ought their Cop●es? And as Moses did about th● T●bernacle? Surely, it is no impossible thing for us to keep the Saturday for our Sabbath; but as Mr Cawdry loves not God's ordinal number, the seventh, lest he should fall into God's order, and so turn Jew: so he loves not to imitate God, lest he should turn Sabbatarian; if he should follow God's example so exactly and closely as he may or can do, than he should be too too like God, and resemble God too much.  
For conclusion, here again, Sir, give me leave to retort this your Argument on this manner.  
If the principal reasons in the fourth Commandment be directly for the seventh day, and indirectly for one day in seven, than the fourth Commandment must rather be understood of the seventh day than of one day in seven.  
But the reasons are directly for the seventh day, and indirectly for one day in seven, as you have seen it proved before, Ergo, etc.    

His fourth Argument.  
If God intended the Jews should rather sanctify the seventh part of their time than the seventh day, than the fourth Commandment doth more directly command one day in seven than that seventh day.  
But God intended that the Jews should rather sanctify the seventh part of their time than the seventh day, Ergo, etc.  

Answer.  
I pray Sir, what difference make you of these two, the seventh part of the Jews time and their seventh day? Will you compare a thing with itself? And make a show of two things where there is but one in divers words? Did not Nehemiah, and others of the Jews give God both the seventh part of their time, and also the seventh day? And doth not Mr Cawdry give Christ both the first part of his time, and also the first day? For ever since he was borne, or made conscience of the Lords day, which is the first day of the week, hath he not given Christ both his first part of time, and also his first day? a worthy comparison!  
Again, you dispute comparatively, whereas you should dispute positively and absolutely, as I said before; and here again you have Mr Cawdry's petitio principii, begging his question where he should have proved it, if he could; is this the way to prove that one day in seven is the true exposition of the fourth Commandment? If it be, Sophistry is the way; now for these two faults mentioned I reject your Argument, and desire you to take it home again, and amend them, and then send it abroad again, to try if it may find any better success.  
As for your reason of the sequel, you say, it is because so it may extend to us Gentiles also. I pray Sir, why may not the seventh and last day of the week extend to us Gentiles as well as any one day of the seven?  
But you think, Sir, that it was both uncertain whether the Jews did precisely keep the seventh day or not, and that in some case it was impossible to be kept. I answer, 1. It matters not whether it be certain or not that the Jews kept the seventh day: for we dispute not the facto, but de jure, of what they did do, but of what they ought to do. 2. Why may it not be as certain that the Jews kept the seventh day, as that they kept your one day of seven?  
As for the impossibility of their keeping it, because once the Sun stood still in Joshuah's time; To this I say, this standing still of the Sun m●de that day a longer day than any other day of that week, but not another day: as if it stood still on Friday the sixth day of the week, yet Saturday next was the seventh day, and so might possibly be kept.  
I but, in regard of the Jews dispersions, as when they were carried into captivity in remote Countries, they could not possibly keep one and the same day for the Sabbath: for the days in places of a different Longitude begin at different times, and as some say, the beginning of the days differ so much as the Hollanders lost a day in surrounding the World.  
To these I answer; 1. If these things be so, how do the Jews keep the Sabbath day now at Amsterdam, and in other places of the world where they live? and how do we in England keep the Lords day? For our days differ in their beginning from the days at Jerusalem where Christ risen.  
2. The ground of this error lies in this, that they think when God commanded the Sabbath day at Mount Sinai he intended that whithersoever his people traveled their Sabbath must begin at the very same point of time that it began at mount Sinai; the which is impossible, and so God should command his people an impossible thing; for when they traveled from Sinai to the remotest parts in Canaan the days had some difference in beginning.  
Again, the word day signifies the time of light, Gen. 1.5, God called the light day, and so the seventh day is the seventh light; now when the seventh light began in every horizon, than the seventh day began, be it sooner or latter; and this is all that God intended in his fourth Commandment.  
To conclude, give me leave, Sir, to retort this your Argument also, in this manner.  
If God intended the Jews should rather sanctify the seventh day than the seventh part of their time; then the fourth Commandment doth more directly command the seventh day than one day in seven.  
But God intended that the Jews should rather sanctify the seventh day than the seventh part of their time, Ergo, etc. I shall as soon make this Argument good, as you shall make yours good, as appears by my Answers to your Argument.    

His fifth Argument.  
If the fourth Commandment did directly, or as the substance of it, command the seventh-day-Sabbath, then either we Christians must keep the same day still, or else the fourth Commandment is utterly void and abolished.  
But we must neither keep that day still, nor is the fourth Commandment, void and abolished. E●go.  

Answer.  
As for his major I grant it; and himself confirms it, saying, the Commandment is moral as well as the other Laws in the Decalogue, for our Saviour confirms it, Mat. 5.18. saying, not one jot or tittle of the Law shall pass away, etc. Now the the seventh-day-Sabbath is more than a jot or tittle of the fourth Commandment wherefore we must turn Sabbatarians, or else the fourth Commandment is void and abolished; thus saith Mr Cawdry.  
As for his minor, I utterly deny the former part of it, saying we must not keep that day still; meaning it of the seventh day. But why so? I pray Sir, what hinders but that we may keep the old Sabbath day still? If it pleased you to keep it as it pleased God to command it, Exo. 20.8. and as it pleased Christ to ratify it, Mat. 5.18. I know nothing against our keeping it but your, and other men's slanderous words of it, as that it is Judaisme, and we must turn Jews to loath God's people of his Sabbath. But do you think God commanded any thing in his ten Commandments, the doing whereof, would make Christians turn Jews? is any thing in the fourth Commandment Ceremonial, shadowing out Christ as yet to come in the flesh? If in this sense we should keep the Sabbath, it were properly called Judaisme: but where is the Christian that keeps it in this sense, or desires to keep it in this sense?  
But since he hath not proved this former part of his Assumption, I may safely deny it: and so this his fi●th Argument stands for a cipher; so still you see how far Mr Cawdry falls short of proving by these Arguments that the seventh day is not commanded as the substance of the fourth Commandment, and that one day of seven is the substance of it.    

His sixth and last Argument.  
If the seventh-day-Sabbath was directly commanded in the fourth Commandment, than there can no sufficient reason be given why the fourth Commandment should be put into the Decalogue, and not amongst other Ceremonial Commandments peculiar to the Jews.  

Answer.  
1. I answer to his proposition thus: why may there not be as good reason given, and as sufficient, for the seventh-day-Sabbath to be put into the Decalogue, as for one day in seven indefinitely, which never was in the fourth Commandment, or in the Decalogue, neither expressly, nor by consequence.  
2. Whereas you say, the fourth Commandment must not be put into the Decalogue among the Morals, but amongst the Ceremonials; it must be so, because you take it for granted that the seventh-day-Sabbath was a Ceremony; and is not this to beg a question? For you do not so much as attempt to prove it a Ceremony; and I believe all the skill you have cannot prove it a Ceremony; so by this A gument you do but beg a question, which you should have proved, but have not, nor can prove it; but begging the question when, and where you should prove it, is no rare thing with you: this is your Logic, whereby you would prove that the fourth Commandment is to be expounded for one day of seven.  
I have now made punctual answers unto all Mr Cawdry's six Arguments, whereby he hath endeavoured, but all in vain, to prove that the seventh-day Sabbath is not directly and expressly commanded in the fourth Commandment, a thing so strangely absurd, that I never read any Author besides himself to deny it; and besides, he hath endeavoured, though also in vain, to prove, that one day in seven indefinitely, that is, any one day of the seven is directly commanded in the fourth Commandment; and that this is the true exposition, sense, and meaning of the fourth Commandment; but never did Jesuit more shamefully corrupt the second Commandment about Images, or any other Scripture, than Mr Cawdry hath corrupted God's fourth Commandment, as appears by my several answers to his six Arguments; He hath done good service to Almighty God to use his wits to overthrow his Sabbaths, and corrupt one of his Ten Commandments: wherefore he may expect his reward when God shall come to give every one according as his own works have been.  
Having vindicated the fourth Commandment from Mr Cawdry's corrupt glosses, and false Exposition of it: now in the last place I shall prove against Mr Cawdry that one day of seven is not the sense and meaning of the fourth Commandment, but the seventh and last day of the week, which falls upon our Saturday; in my proof whereof Mr Cawdry shall see that we have many more Arguments out of the fourth Commandment to prove this point than the ordinal number seventh.  
By the great pains Mr Cawdry hath taken to draw the fourth Commandment to the exposition of one day in seven; and also, for that by this Exposition he hath made answer to many of my twenty four Arguments; hereby you may perceive that the main and chief controversy about the Sabbath will be determined by his or n y Exposition of the fourth Commandment; wherefore I shall be the larger in proving my Exposition for the seventh and last day of the week: and so I come to prove this point;    

That the fourth Commandment ought not to be expounded for one day of seven, but of the seventh and last day of seven definitely.  

Argument the first.  
My first Argument shall be taken out of the first words of the fourth Commandment, Remember the Sabbath day. This word Sabbath, I confess, signifies Rest; but there is more in it than so: for it is also a proper name for one of the days of the week, as for the seventh and last day, which is our Saturday, like as Lords day is a proper name for the first day of the week, which is our Sunday; and thus I prove it.  
1. Wheresoever in the Old or New Testaments you read the word Sabbath, it being spoken of a weekly day, it is never used but for a proper name for one of the week days, as for Saturday the Seventh and last day of the week; no instance can be given to the contrary. 2. The Jews did anciently reckon their days of the week thus, Satu●day they called Sabbathum, Sabbath day; Sunday they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Joh. 20.1. the first day of the Sabbath; Monday the second of the Sabbath etc. yea, the Jews now at Amsterdam call Saturday the Sabbath day; so still it is used for a proper name for our Saturday. 3. The Latins call our Saturday Sabbatum the Sabbath day, as is to be seen in all Latin Dictionaries; yea, it is so in England; for when a Writ comes down from the Superior Courts for a man's appearance, if it be for his appearance on Saturday, it is written Sabbatum, and die Sabbati. 4. I appeal to all Scholars, if the word Sabbatum be not used in the ancient Histories of the Church for Saturday the seventh and last day of the week. Thus you see that Sabbath day is a proper name for our Saturday the seventh day; now proper names of things are definite, not indefinite▪ they do limit the thing named to one certain individual thing, and leave it not at rovers and uncertainties, as unto any one thing, or as unto any one day ●f the seven, as Mr. Cawdry's idle fancy is. I cannot spare a man so grossly absurd in expounding Gods fourth Commandment.  
But against this it is objected, that Sabbath day is no proper name, but a common name; for the yearly festivals were also called Sabbaths, Levit. 23.24. To this I answer, 1. We speak of weekly days, and in relation to the fourth Commandment, not of yearly days, in reference to ceremonial Laws. 2. It will no more hinder the Sabbath day to be a proper name for one of the week days, than it will hinder the names of Peter and John for proper names of two Apostles, because other men then living, and no Apostles, have the same names; so far of my first Argument.   

Argument the second.  
My second Argument shall be taken out of the middle part of the fourth Commandment, saying, But the seventh day is the Sabbath, etc. for the right understanding and exposition of this word seventh, we must know there are two sorts of numbers, a Cardinal, and an O dinal; the Cardinal numbers are these, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, etc. now these comprise all the the things numbered without difference; the ordinal numbers are these, first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, etc. now these notify not all, but one of the things numbered, and considers that one in a due order for the last of the things numbered as for the seventh which follows the sixth going in order before it, not any one of them without difference▪ as when we say, the seventh day of the month, we mean not as Mr Cawdry would, any one of the seven days, but the last of the seven days which follow the six days in order before it. And by the seventh year of the K●ngs Reign is not understood one of the seven years indefinitely, but the last year of the seven definitely and precisely. So this word seventh in the fourth Commandment is not a cardinal, but an ordinal number, notifying not any one of the seven days, but the seventh and last day of the seven, which is our Saturday.  
Our Sunday or Lords day is often in Scripture called the first day of the week, Mat. 28.1. Mar. 16.2, 9 Luk. 24.1. Joh. 20.1, 19 Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. 16.2. now then reckon onwards, and Saturday will be the seventh and last day of the week; As there is but one Lords day, or one first day of the week, so reckoning onward there can be but one Saturday, or one seventh day of the week, which must needs be a definite and certain day; now Saturday is no uncertain day at rovers, or any one of the seven days, uncertain which day it is: so the fourth Commandment is to be expounded of Saturday, and the seventh day, or last day of the seven definitely, not of any day of the seven.  
I know they use to object a tenth deal of flower, and a fourth part of an hin of oil, but this will not make the seventh year of the King's Reign to be any one of the seven years: nor will it make the Lords day, which is the first day of the week, to be any one day of the week, uncertain which day it is; but to this I have answered fully before, in my answer to his third instance, and shall not here repeat it; so far of my second Argument, wherein the point is proved both by the ordinal seventh in the fourth Commandment, and also by the ordinal first ascribed to the Lords day.   

Argument the third.  
My third Argument shall be taken out of the last part of the fourth Commandment, saying, For God rested the seventh day, and sanctified the Sabbath day: so here we have the seventh day mentioned before in the Commandment, Exod 20.10. repeated, and the Sabbath day, mentioned before in the Commandment, Exod. 20.8. repeated also; whence I gather, that the words Sabbath day at the beginning of the Commandment, and the same words at the ending of the Commandment speak both of one and the same revolution of time and day; and the words seventh day in the former part of the Commandment, and the same words repeated in the latter part of the Commandment are to be understood of the same time and day.  
For 1. In a continued speech, one word or phrase often repeated is to be understood in one and the same sense, so as if in the latter part of the speech the words be definite, then so they must be in the former part also. 2. God's rest on the seventh day, and sanctifying the Sabbath day, are brought as an Argument, reason, or motive to persuade men to keep this seventh-day Sabbath; now the same words in the question or conclusion, repeated in the Argument or motive, must have one and the same sense if there be fair dealing: so as if the one be to be understood definitely, and of a time certain, then so must the other be understood also. 3. These words, the seventh day's rest of God, and Gods sanctifying the Sabbath day, are propounded as God's example for us to imitate and follow; now the Scholar must follow his Copy as near as possibly he can; Moses was to follow God's pattern of the Tabernacle, even to an hair's breadth if possible: so are we to imitate God's example by keeping the same seventh-day-Sabbath weekly which God kept at the Creation.  
By these three reasons it appears, that being the same words must have the same sense in all the fourth Commandment, and that the day wherein God rested at the Creation, and which then he sanctified, being it was the seventh and last day of the week, folloWing his six days creating, it was not any one day of the seven, but the last day of the seven definitely; therefore the fourth Commandment is to be expounded throughout, from the beginning to the ending of it; for the seventh and last day of the week, which is a fixed, limited, and definite day, not a day at random, rovers, and uncertain, as any one day of the seven. The day, I say, whereon God rested at the Creation, being certainly the seventh, and last day of the seven, or week; the whole fourth Commandment must be expounded of the same seventh, and last day of the seven, or week certainly, not at rovers, as appears by my three reasons given; so far of my third Argument.   

Argument the fourth.  
My fourth Argument shall be taken out of the body of the fourth Commandment, saying, Six days shalt thou labour, but the seventh day thou shalt rest, Exod. 20.9, 10. For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, etc. and he rested the seventh day, Exod. 20.11. whence I note, that the six days, wherein God created the world, were his working days, and they all went together, no resting or Sabbath day coming between them: and the six working days of man went also all together, no resting or Sabbath day coming between them; whence it follows, that of necessity the Sabbath day, in the fourth Commandment, could not possibly be appointed for one day of seven indefinitely, that is, for any one day of the seven indifferently; for the six day's labour ought to go together for working days; and therefore the Sabbath day could not come in between any of the six working days, or be any one of them; wherefore of necessity the Sabbath day must fall after the six working days, upon the seventh and last day of the week, and not upon any one of the seven days; so far of my fourth Argument.   

Argument the fifth.  
If there never was from the giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai down to our times any day known in the Churches, but one weekly day for the seventh day; nor any day known for the Sabbath day weekly but one, namely, Saturday the seventh and last day of the week; then the fourth Commandment ought to be expounded of that one seventh day definitely, and of that one Sabbath day, namely, Saturday the seventh and last d●y of the week: and not for any one of the seven days, or for a Sabbath day at rovers and uncertainly.  
But there never was from the giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai down to our times any day known in the Churches, but one weekly day for the seventh day; nor any day known for the Sabbath day weekly but one, namely, Saturday the seventh and last day of the week.  
Therefore the fourth Commandment ought to be expounded of that one seventh day definitely, and of that one Sabbath day, namely, Saturday the seventh and last day of the week: and not for any one of the seven days, or for a Sabbath day at rovers and uncertainly.  
As for the first proposition, it is so clear as it needs no proof; only remember this, that we speak of a Sabbath weekly, not of any anniversary and yearly Sabbath, which belonged not to the fourth Commandment, but to their several and ceremonial Commandments: but we have to do only with the fourth Commandment, and the weekly Sabbaths in relation to it. And so I come to prove my second Proposition in both the parts.  
1. At the Creation God began to number the days of the week by these ordinal numbers, the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and the last was the seventh day, Gen. 1.5, 8, etc. Gen. 2.2, 3. this numbering of the week days continued in the Church unto the giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai, Exod. ●0. 9, 10. from thence it continued in the Church until Christ's time, Mat. 28.1. Mar. 16 2, 9 and in all these times no day was known to be the seventh but one, namely, Saturday; and from Christ's time unto ours it is still so known: for all Divines, Ancient, and Modern, call our Sunday, or Lords day, the first day of the week, and so consequently Saturday if you reckon onwards the seventh day; so there being no seventh day but one, namely Saturday, the fourth Commandment must be expounded of Saturday the seventh day, and not of one day in seven uncertainly.  
2. As for the name Sabbath day, it began in the Church for a weekly day before the giving of the L●w, Exod. 16.22, 23. from thence unto the giving of the Law it continued for a weekly day, Exod. 20.8, 9 10. from the giving of the Law unto Christ it still continued in the Church, Isa. 56.2, 6. Isa. 58.13. N●h. 13.15. Mat. 28 1. Luk. 23.56. with Luk. 24 1. and from Christ's time in hath continued unto our time; for Ecclesiastical H●storians anciently used the name Sabbath day for Saturday; the Latins do so to this day, and in England, as in the case of a Writ, we do the same, as I have shew● before; wherefore since there never was, nor is known in the Churches, any weekly day named Sabbath day but one, namely Saturday; therefore the fourth Commandment must be expounded of this one day Saturday, the seventh and last day of the week, and not of a Sabbath day indefinitely, as uncertain which day it is; thus you have seen this Argument proved.  
But it will be said, Is not our Lord's day commonly called Sabbath day in all Pulpits, and in all Books? I answer, yea: it is so called by such as love to miscall things, and to nickname days; so they may call if they please every Fast day, every Thanksgiving day, & every Christmas day But sure I am, this is but a novelty of yesterday standing; and as the name is novel, so is the observation of the Lords day, as, or for a Sabbath novel also, as by and by you shall see: For,  
1. The Lord's day was never called Sabbath day in any Scripture of the New Testament; let them show us a Text for it if they can.  
2. These Authors before mentioned, St Augustine, Peter Martyr, Calvin, Zanchie, Vrsinus, Paraeus, Chemnitius, Melanchion, with many others, all these wrote of the Lords day; that it is but an indifferent thing, and of the same authority with Good Friday the Passion day, Christmas day, and o her holy days of the Church; and therefore these men could not think in their times the Lords day was a Sabbath: or call the Lords day Sabbath day, as we do in reference to the fourth Commandment.  
3. In the fifth year of Edward the sixth an Act was made for the keeping of Holy days, as Sunday, St Matthews day, St Marks day, and the other holy days: In which Act, both the King, the Lords spiritual the Bishops, the Lords Temporal, and the House of Commons expressly confessed that they knew no Scripture for Sunday, or the other Holy days, and therefore they could not call Sunday, or St Matthews day Sabbath days, and therefore this nicknaming of days, as to call the Sunday and Lords day Sabbath day, and to keep it as a Sabbath, is but a novelty, and sprang up but since Edward the sixth his days.  
4. I am sixty four years of Age, and so cannot remember much above fifty years, yet I do remember such works commonly done on the Lord's day, as I am sure are no Sabbath days works: For in the City of Norwich, about fifty years ago, the City Waits, or Musicians were wont for divers weeks in the year to play upon the Market Cross on the latter pa●t of the Lords day, thousands of people there assembled to hear them. At the new elected Majors gate they played at Wasters or Cudgels on the latter part of the Lords day, with hundreds of people looking on. And the Sealing Office was open, and Weavers carrying and recarrying their S●uffs to be sealed. The Merchants bought their S●uff; on the Lord's day, and packed them in great packs the same day: and the Carts loaded the Stuffs the same day at night, and went towards London by four a clock the next morning; these things were done with the knowledge of all the Magistrates, and without contradiction of the most godly Ministers. I have been credibly informed, that about ten years before my time a religious Grocer in the City did open his shop ordinarily on the Lord's day, and Mr Moor, the most religious Minister then in the City, hath come into the Shop, seeing them buying and selling Grocery wares, and did never rebuke them for it, or say, why do you so? And another ancient and religious man a Shoemaker told me this day, that in his younger time Shoemakers sold shoes on the Lord's day ordinarily; wherefore the observation of the Lords day as a Sabbath day is but a novel●y, and they that thus kept it could not think it was a Sabbath day, or call it a Sabbath day; so far of my fifth Argument.   

Argument the sixth.  
If the fourth Commandment was expounded by Moses and the Prophets for Saturday the seventh and last day of the week, and not for Sunday the first day of the week, or any one day of the seven; then the fourth Commandment is now to be expounded for Saturday the seventh and last day of the we●ke, and not for Sunday the first day of the week, or for any one day of the seven.  
But the fourth Commandment was expounded by Moses and the Prophets for Saturday the seventh and last day of the week, and not for Sunday ●he first day of the week; or for one da● of seven:  
Therefore the fourth Commandment ought in our times to be expounded for Saturday the seventh and last day of the week, not for Sunday the first day of the week, or for any one day of the seven.  
As for the fi●st proposition, it stands firm by this reason; Look what was once the true sense and meaning of God's Laws, the same is the sense and meaning of it for ever after: for the sense and meaning of Scripture do not vary and change with the change of time●; as if Scripture had one exposition and meaning to day, and another to morrow; we can find no better rule for the expounding of any Text of Scripture in the Old Testament, than to expound it as Moses and the Prophets did anciently; If therefore the fourth Commandment was anciently expounded for Saturday, it must be so expounded still, and in our times. Take a ceremonial Law, as that of Circumcision, or the Passeover, and if you will expound and open the sense of it now, you must render the same sense of it now which Moses and the Prophets gave of it anciently, or else your exposition is false; I do not say a ceremonial Law binds now as it did anciently, but yet I say the exposition of it is the same now which it was anciently: as if you fall upon exposition of the time and day of Circumcision, or the Passover, you must expound it now of the eighth day, not of the seventh or ninth day: and of the foureteenth day of the month, not of the foureteenth day of the year; and so you must deal with every of the ten moral Commandments, or else you deal falsely with them.  
As for the second Preposition, it is clear that Moses and the Prophets did expound the fourth Commandment to their people the Jews for Saturday the seventh and last day of the week, not for Sunday the first day of the week, or for any one day of the seven, because the Church of the Jews, who were taught and instructed by Moses and the Prophets, kept the Saturday, and not the Sunday by the fourth Commandment; yea, this Mr Cawdry confesseth, saying, The seventh and last day of the week was appointed to the old world. that is, to the Jews; so far of my sixth Argument.   

Argument the seventh.  
If the Lords day be rightly expounded for the first day of the week, and not for any one day of the week, uncertain which day it is, than the Sabbath day must be expounded for the seventh and last day of the week, and not for any one day of the seven, uncertain which day it is. The reason hereof is one and the same; for when you read of a day called the Lords day, Rev. 1.10. you understand it of the first day of the week, and of no other day, because you read elsewhere that Christ our Lord risen on the first day of the week, Mar. 16.9. so when we read of the Sabbath day, Exod. 20.8. and read again in the same fourth Commandment, The seventh day is the Sabbath, Exod. 20.10. we must understand it of the seventh and last day of the week, and of no other day; for if the ordinal number first be understood properly for the first day of the seven, and not improperly for any one of the seven as touching the Lords day; so the ordinal number seventh must be understood properly also for the last of seven, not improperly for any one of the seven as touching the ancient Sabbath day; if the one be taken properly, so must the other; and if the one be take improperly, so may the other; so far of my seventh Argument.  
Thus I have proved by seven Arguments that the fourth Commandment must be expounded of Saturday the seventh and last day of the week, and not of any one of the seven days. Now for ● further vindication of the fourth Commandment, I shall show how absurd it is for Mr Cawdry to deny the Saturday, the seventh and last day, to be expressly commanded in the fourth Commandment, and to expound it of a Sabbath day indefinitely, and of one day of seven indefinitely.    

Of the absurdness to reject the exposition of the fourth Commandment for the Sabbath day definitely, and the seventh and last day of the seven definitely, and to expound it of a Sabbath day indefinitely, and of a seventh day indefinitely, or of one day in seven.  

The first absurdity.  
If by the word Sabbath in the fourth Commandment we may understand a Sabbath day uncertainly, as a rest upon any of the seven days; and by the word seventh any one of the seven days; then we may keep two Sabbath days together without six day's labour going between them: As for example, we may keep the Saturday the last of the week, and Sunday the first of the next week; and so two Sabbaths go together, no working days coming between them, and is not this absurd? For Saturday is one day of the seven in the former week, and Sunday after is one day of the seven in the latter week.  
Again, If the former please nor, then take this; Christ did lie in his grave upon Saturday, which by the Jews was kept for the Sabbath day according to the fourth Commandment, Luk. 23 56. Now if Christians kept the Sunday or Lords day, being the next day following the Sabbath day, were not then two Sabbath days kept together without any working days coming between them? And is not this absurd? Furthermore, and if both days were kept by the fourth Commandment, is not this much more absurd? So far of the first absurdity.   

The second absurdity.  
If by Sabbath we may understand a rest on any day of the week; and by seventh any one of the seven days; then we may keep by the fourth Commandment Sunday the Lord's day this week in memory of Christ's Resurrection, and Good Friday in the next week, or every other Friday in the year in memory of Christ's Passion: for as Sunday is one day of the seven in this week, so Friday is one day of the seven in the next week; and is not this absurd? And to keep these two days by the fourth Commandment also, is not this much more absurd; so far of the second absurdity.  
But perhaps you will say, we have Scripture for the Lords day, but you have none for Good Friday. I answer, If I would abuse Scripture for Friday, as you abuse Scripture for the Lords day, I could allege a Text, having as much colour in it as the best of your Texts; see for this purpose, Zech. 12.10, etc. They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only Son. This Text may be applied to Good Friday, wherein Christ was pierced for our Sins, and wrought the work of our eternal Redemption, and said upon his Cross, now It is finished, joh. 19.30. So we may keep the Lords day every other week in memory of Christ's Resurrection, and every other Friday as our Christian Sabbath in memory of Christ's Passion and our Redemption.  
But you will say, the Sabbath day is a day of rejoicing, but Good Friday is a day of mourning. To this I answer, the Sabbath day in the fourth Commandment was kept in memory of the Creation, and yet you can keep the Lords day by the fourth Commandment in memory of the Resurrection; why then may we not keep sometimes the memory of Christ's Passion and our Redemption on Friday by the fourth Commandment as well as Sunday, or the Lord's day, in memory of the Resurrection by the fourth Commandment? but a change in both; I know indeed that this Text, Zech. 12.10. is liable to many just exceptions, and so is the best Text alleged by Mr Cawdry for the Lords day; but would he be pleased to take Good Friday into his favour as he hath done the Lord's day, he could with a little of his Logic, mingled with much of his Rhetoric, and some of his Sophistry, make this Text, Zech. 12.10. as plausible a Text before the multitude for Good Friday, as is his best Text for the Lords day▪ And so I come to the third absurdity.   

The third absurdity.  
If by Sabbath we may understand any day of the week wherein we rest; and by seventh any one day of the seven; then first, The Jews were no more bound to keep Saturday the last day of seven than to keep the Lords day, or Sunday the first day of the seven; for the Sunday was then some one day of the seven.  
Secondly, Then we Christians may keep the Saturday Sabbath; for this day is one day of the seven; but we may not keep the Saturday, as they say, because it is Judaisme, as they call it; and it is expired, and abolished, as they say.  
Now are not these two things two absurdities? So far of this third absurdity.   

The fourth absurdity.  
To expound the fourth Commandment for one day of seven is absurd, because we have but one day of six if they reject the seventh and last day of the week; take away Saturday, the seventh day, as an abolished, or expired day, which may not be kept for fear of Judaisme, and then you have remaining but six days in every week; and therefore if you take any day of these six days for a Sabbath, you take but one day out of six days, not one day out of seven days; for one of the seven days is exempted and excepted, so as it may not be taken. In case we were wont to choose a Major out of seven Citizens, and now the King forbids us to choose the last man of the seven because he is sickly, and like to die, or dead; though anciently our choice was one out of seven, yet now it is but one out of six.  
God commands to keep the seventh day holy, but Mr Cawdry hath brought it down to one day of seven, and upon further search it is come down to one day of six; So far of this fourth Absurdity.   

The fifth Absurdity.  
It is absurd, if not also impious and wicked, to alter the exposition, sense, and meaning of the Ceremonial Commandments; and therefore it must be so to alter the exposition of the fourth Commandment, or any of the ten moral Commandments; take these instances: first, see Leu. 23.24. In the seventh month, and the first day of the month ye shall have a Sabbath for the remembrance of blowing the Trumpet, etc. were it not an impious thing to alter the sense of this Commandment, saying, God intended no more by this ordinal number the seventh month but this, that the people should give him a Sabbath in any one of the seven months? Secondly, see Leu. 25.4. Six years thou shalt sow thy field, but the seventh year shall be a Sabbath, etc. Had Mr Cawdry wrote in Moses days he could have taught the people that they might give God but some one or other of the seven years for a Sabbath. Thirdly, the Passeover was to be kept on the fourteenth day of the month; I, could Mr Cawdry say, that is upon some one or other of the fourteen days. Fourthly, the eighth day was appointed for Circumcision; yet, can Mr Cawdry say, by this ordinal number the eighth may be meant one of the eight days, as the first, or third, etc. Fifthly, Christ risen the third day, but it may be upon some one of the three days, as on the first day or second. God commanded Circumcision on the eighth day; may not Mr Cawdry say, hence Christians be bound to baptise Children on the ninth day, the day after, or on the first day? For he saith, we are to keep our Sabbath on the eighth or first day. Is not this to make the Scriptures a Nose of Wax? If it be absurd, yea, and wickedly done to alter the sense of of the Ceremonial Laws, is it not so too to alter the sense of a moral Law?   

The sixth Absurdity.  
Supposing, but not granting, that Mr Brabourne were bound in a bond to pay to Mr Cawdry twenty pounds upon Christmas day the twenty fifth day of December, when Mr Cawdry can make him believe that this twenty pounds is due to him upon the first day of December, or upon any one of the twenty five days of December; then shall he make him believe also, that when God binds men in the bond of the fourth Commandment to sanctify the Sabbath day, the seventh day of the week, than he binds men by his bond of the fourth Commandment to sanctify the first day of the week the Lords day, or any one of the seven days. Our common Lawyers in pleading a Bond before a Judge, would be ashamed of such Law; but our eminent Divines in preaching to the people of the bond of the fourth Commandment are ●ot ashamed of such Divinity. Again, when Mr Cawdry will be willing to take for his tenth, or tithe Lamb any one of the ten, be it a rotten, lame, lean, or blind Lamb, than it may be he shall persuade me, that by Gods seventh day we may understand some one day of the six working days.   

The seventh Absurdity.  
All Divines that I have read, confess, that the seventh day, and Saturday-Sabbath, was commanded to the Jews in the fourth Commandment; and the Jews now living wheresoever, do keep the Saturday by the fourth Commandment; yea, and Mr Cawdry saith often in his Books of the Sabbath, that the seventh and last day was appointed to the old world, that is, to the Jews; but if now, and ●ince Christ, the Saturday and sev●nth-day-Sabbath be not comamnded in the fourth Commandment, but some other one day of seven, as the Lords day, the first day of the week, than the sense and meaning of the fourth Commandment is altered and changed from what it was anciently, and a new sense and meaning is given of it; if this be not an absurdity, or rather a madness, I know not what is.  
Shall the words in the Scripture be thought to change their sense with the times? Shall they have one sense to day, and another to morrow? Is not this the sin of him that thought he might change times and Laws, Dan. 7.25.  
That one word in divers Texts may signify divers things is nothing strange; but that one and the same word in one and the same Text, the fourth Commandment, should signify anciently one thing, and in our days another thing, this is an absurdity matchless.  
That by Sabbath, and seventh day the fourth Commandment should ●●joyne the Saturday to the Jews, and the Sunday to the Gentiles; the Saturday for thousands of years unto Christ, and the Sunday for ever after Christ; this may well be called the Queen of absurdities.  
Hath the approach of the Gospel changed the meaning of the words in the Law? If words in the Decalogue shall have one sense before Christ came, and another sense after Christ's coming, there will be no certain sense of any of the ten Commandments.  
Were a Schoolmaster to construe Terence, or other profane Author to his Scholars, he would be ashamed to give any sense divers from an ancient known sense; but we have Ministers not ashamed to abuse their Auditors worse than a Schoolmaster would abuse his Scholars: wherefore Schoolmasters shall rise up in judgement to condemn such Ministers; God never bestowed wit and learning on such Ministers, and I may say honesty too, to corrupt his Scriptures, and to abuse their Auditors; Is this to take charge of the Souls of the people?  
For my part, laying aside the respects I bear to God, and to the Scriptures, I care not whether you keep Saturday-Sabbath, Sunday-Sabbath, or Monday Sabbath; and if we kept none at all it were best of all: but if we have respect to God or to his Scriptures, let us give him the day of his own choice, not another; let us not so shamefully and abominably corrupt his Scriptures by notorious false expositions; it were far better for the Church and State to have no Scriptures, than to have Scriptures falsely expounded to the people.   

The eighth Absurdity  
Suppose we that Christ had left a Commandment in the New Testament for the Lords day, as certainly God left a Commandment for Saturday the seventh day in the Old Testament; and suppose that Christ had said, Remember the Lords day to sanctify it; the first day of the week is the Lords day, in it thou shalt do no work; for the Lord Christ re●●ed, or risen from the dead on the first day of the week, and therefore the Lord Christ blessed the Lords day, and sanctified it.  
If now Mr Brabourne should preach on this Commandment, or write a book for the true Exposition of it, and instruct the people of the Land, saying,  
1. By the Lord's day, you are to understand a Lords day, but not the Lords day, for every day of the week is the Lord Christ's day in some sense. 2. By the first day of the week you may understand some one day of the week or other. 3. We may imitate Christ's resting or rising from death, on the first day of the week, if we Christians rest upon some one or other day of the week, as on Saturday the last day of the week. 4. The Lord's day was appointed to the Grecians in the first Age of the Church, but Saturday the seventh day to us Christians. 5. The Lord's day, and first day of the week are not the substance of Christ's Commandment, but Saturday the last of the week. 6 The Lords day, and first day of the week, are indirectly commanded by Christ, but Saturday, the seventh day of the week, are directly commanded.  
Should I thus expound this Commandment of Christ, oh, how would the Patrons of the Lords day rage, stamp, and storm at me? Saying, how shamefully doth this Brabourne corrupt Christ his Law for the Lords day? How abominably doth he abuse God's people by his false Expositions? Never did Jesuit so abuse and corrupt any Texts of Scripture as this man hath abused our Lord Christ his Commandment; the Devils themselves did never so abuse the Scriptures; it is pity the man is suffered to live any longer, hanging is too good for him, burn him like an Heretic, I cannot express the one half of their zeal in this kind; and I confess all this were worthily spoken against me if I had so done; but now I pray compare my supposed Exposition of Christ's supposed Commandment with Mr cawdry's real Exposition of God's real fourth Commandment in the six particulars mentioned, and behold how parallel and alike they are one to the other point by point! now if my Exposition be abominably absurd, what then is theirs? and if Jesuits, yea, and the Devil never did the like, what may too many of our most zealous Ministers think of themselves who do the same d●yly, and are the most forward and stirring in this kind of exposition? so far of the Absurdities, and now I come to my Conclusion,     

The Conclusion.  
HAving vindicated God's fourth Commandment from Mr cawdry's false Expositions of it; now it will be expected that I should proceed in answer to other passages of his Books, and in particular to confute his answers made unto divers of my twenty four Arguments for the ancient Sabbath, and to answer or confute his Texts alleged by him in maintenance of the Lords-day-Sabbath, as it is called now adays; touching these two I shall give this account.  
First, concerning the ancient Sabbath; if I should maintain my twenty four Arguments, Mr Cawdry, or some of his friends for him might complain to the State, and procure my book to be answered by fire as Jewish; for so was Mr Ockfords' book of like kind; but I am resolved that no provocations shall force me to proceed so far; again, having vindicated the fourth Commandment from this false exposition of one day in seven, I have confuted the most of his Answers given by him to many of my 24 Arguments, so as it is needless for me to proceed any further.  
Now as touching Mr cawdry's Texts, alleged by him to prove the Lords day to be kept for a Sabbath, if I should answer them, as nothing is more facile and easy to be done, I might so also run the hazard of having my books burnt with fire, but I will not offend the State so far; I shall therefore satisfy myself with this, that I have many years since discharged my conscience by writing of two several books, wherein I have made answers plentifully to every one of their Texts of Scripture, and given not one but many answers unto every one of their Texts of Scripture, the which answers were never yet confuted by any man, and yet it is about twenty six years since I wrote my first book, and about twenty two years since I wrote my second book; nor hath Mr Cawdry now confuted those answers, albeit he hath made a great flourish with three great books, saying, he will confute all gainsayers; but it is very false, for he hath not confuted Mr Brabourne.  
I observe, that albeit M. Cawdry is larger upon the Sabbath than any man, yet hath he nothing new, or more for matter than others have wrote many years ago; new books but old matter; more words, but no more matter; the Practice of Piety in a few leaves is as large for matter as M. Cawdries three large books of twelve shillings price; now since Mr Cawdry hath brought no new Texts of Scripture to light, or new Arguments for the Lords day; wherefore should I blot paper, and spend ink to answer that in him which I have fully answered long since to others, who have wrote the same things before him?  
Whilst I was in writing of my first book of the Sabbath, and in answering the Texts of Scripture alleged for the Lords day, me thought they were such simple and silly things for that purpose, as my thoughts often checked me for vouchsafing an answer to them, fearing understanding Divines would secretly think that Brabourne was some Ignoramus, or some vainglorious man, labouring to gain credit by fight with a shadow, and confuting what no judicious Scholar would maintain. I remember that divers times I took off my Pen to pause whether I should go on or not, and doubtless I had then broke off, but that I saw so many of our most zealous Ministers so far from being ashamed of it, as they with a deal of not zeal maintained it; but I may say of them, as once Saint Paul said of those superstitious Jews, They have the zeal of God, but not according to knowledge, Rom. 10.2. And as Christ said to the Scribes and Pharisees, Woe be unto you blind guides, for misleading the devout people of the Land, Mat. 23. and so I end.  
FINIS.