AN Examination OF A LATE BOOK Published by Doctor own, CONCERNING A Sacred DAY of REST.  
Many Truths therein as to the Morality of a Christian Sabbath, assented to.  
With a Brief Inquiry into his Reasons for the change of it, from the Seventh Day to the First; by way of Denial.  
As also, The Consent of DOCTOR HEYLIN, and others, touching the Time and Manner of that Charge.  
With an inquiry into the nature of his assertions, about the first and second Covenant.  
By WILLIAM SELLERS.  
Printed in the Year, MDCLXXI.   

To the Impartial READER.  
Reader,  
I Am apt to think, thou mayest wonder at my undertaking to oppose the Doctrine of so Learned a Scribe, as Doctor own: but I shall give thee the Reason of it. I know well, through the tender mercy of God, that I am on the upper ground with him; for I stand for the defence of a Cause that will save itself, and bear out me; it was far from my heart, to contend with this Worthy Man, if there had not been a just necessity. For, I desire not contention with good men, nor did I ever draw the long sword against any Antagonist, for want of love to him, nor do I now, and hope I never shall; nor hath any sinister end whatsoever prevailed with me in this matter of controversy; but knowing right well, that if I should stand still, and see the truth of God trodden down at such a rate, as in his Book it is, and I altogether hold my peace, being, by his grace, put into some capacity to defend it, he would never take it well at my hands, in the day of account. So referring thee to my following Lines, for the trial of the controversy: not intending to meddle with it here: but entreating thee to pray thine heart into an honest frame, to give true Judgement between the Doctor and me: and that as thou lovest thy best Interest, take heed thy worldly Interest do not bias thee. So subscribes,  
Thy Souls well-wishing Friend, W. S.   

I Having met with a Book of Doctor Owen's, a man of note for Piety and Learning: I gladly set time apart to red, and consider it, concluding I should find some worthy service done by him, that would tend to the good of the present, and succeeding generations: although I did expect a difference might remain between him and me, about the precise Day of Rest; but if I had found no other difference between me and him, nor between the truth and him, then I might in reason expect. I was resolved to signify to him in a Letter, what in his Book did dis-satisfie me, and see his answer,( if it might have been obtained) before I did openly appear against him. Not greatly fearing, that he would have gone farther out of the way in this matter, than many Worthies that have wrote about this Subject; as Mr. Dod, Dr. Bayly, Mr. Chaudry, Mr. shepherd, and several others, who, from a conceit that the Day of Sabbath was changed to the first day of the week, by Christ; argued it at the best rate they could, but still with this circumspectly care, in all they said, to keep the Crown as honourably as they could, upon the head of the fourth Commandment. Now my expectation was, that Dr. own, who I conceive hath the advantage of them, would not have turned more crookedly out of the way than they did: but when I came to red his Book, I saw it was no Letter matter, but it was a piece very dishonourable to the Christian Religion: but my intention is not to meddle with all I dislike, but to speak to some of the most dangerous mistakes, that are most likely to snare the souls of men; but withall, I freely confess, there be many excellent passages of Truth asserted by him, if he had not plucked down with one hand, as fast as he built with the other. The best of his sayings I shall not conceal.  
And first, to what I find in his Epistle, take, and it is worthy. The public profession of Religion, and the rule it bears in the minds and lives of men, cannot be maintained without a due observance of a stated day of Sacred Rest, which had its beginning by Gods own appointment. Now this is a true saying, and the sense of the most Judicious and Godly Ministers among us this day, who will be as ready to say as he, no Sabbath, no Religion; how contrary soever both they, and the Congregations with them, walk to this Rule. Like passages we find in the third page.,[ where he, complaining of mens inventions, universally perverting the state of all things made of God, giving instance in that Sacred day, when all things were made very good.] Now nothing can be more evident than this, that in this place he means the seventh day Sabbath, expressed Gen. 2. if he intended his meaning should be known by his words. But again, after some worthy acknowledgements[ of the Advantages, that lay in that day, and duty of keeping it, then he says, it might be so still to the sons of men, but that they are continually finding out new inventions] now would any man think that it were possible, after such a testimony born by himself for that day; and telling us, that it might be as good for us now as it was then, if it were not for our own inventions, that he himself should prove such a man of invention, as presently to face about, and writ a Book of inventions, against this very day and duty, he hath born so high a Testimony for; as in the fourteenth page. of his Book, he falleth to Nick-name this very day, calling it the[ Judaical Sabbath] with reproaching them as[ unwary and unadvised persons that keep it] but whether against his Conscience, I dare not say, but against his principles, I dare say, he doth it; see his thirty seventh page., where he saith expressly,[ the name given in Scripture to a day, it must be called by, and not otherwise] now this is true; for if we call any thing by a wrong name, we deceive the understandings of all we speak to, and also transgress the Scripture Rule, 2 Tim. 1.13. Hold fast the form of sound words. Therefore, how he hath abused Gods Word, and his Reader, both here, and in his whole fourth exercitation, where he brands the Sabbath with that name of Judaical; both the Reader and himself may judge; unless he can find the Spirit of God naming the seventh day Sabbath Judaical, any where in Scripture. But I hope the Doctor, in the writing of his next Book, will remember to keep a little closer, to that good Doctrine expressed in his twentieth page. namely[ it is onely walking according to Rule that will please God] but by what Rule the Doctors Pen writeth, is meet for his own second thoughts, for so irreconcilable a man with himself, I think is hard to be found on earth; for in his twenty third page., there he first proveth, from Gen. 2. and Exod. 20. that the Sabbath is called the Seventh day, and within a few lines after, he saith, it is not absolutely so called any where, but let me tell him, he will take upon him a great work, when he taketh in hand the proof of this; for, wherever it is made mention of, with respect to any appellations of any day in the week, the Seventh is name, and no other: but in the next page. he tells us,[ the Apostle cast out of use this appellation of the seventh day, now under the New Testament, and hath antiquated it] but what Apostle he meaneth, and where we shall find any proof for any of this, the D●ctor tells us not. But another note I cannot but mind the Reader of, in his second Exercitation, where, after the writing of at least fifty pages, proving the Sabbaths beginning in Paradise, and being naturally moral, the law of our Creation, and the like; he says, it was[ absolutely commensurate to the Church-state of the Jews, beginning and ending with it] To this, I say, for the Sabbaths being commensurate to the Jewish Church-state, I see no reason to gainsay him; for my own Judgement is satisfied, that the Sabbath is commensurate to every state of the Church, and to every age of the world; there is no reason to the contrary; wherefore should it not as well as its fellows? first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth. But how it comes to begin and end with the Church of the Jews, had need to be well proved first; and secondly, well reconciled to what the Doctor hath said of it in his Book, which two works will cost him two great Books more, before it be effected: but indeed I cannot but wonder, that he should think his bare word proof enough for such things as few men in the Land believe to be true, besides himself. But now, on the contrary, the Doctor, like a man lead by two contrary spirits, falls a contradicting this by fresh arguments, to prove the seventh day Sabbath naturally moral, and universal; as in the 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, and 128, pages, in all which places, he makes it his business to prove it so, with more to the same purpose, in the 149, 165, 178, 179, and 180 pages, unto which I refer the Reader, as being too numerous to be here inserted. But I shall name a passage or two, and so proceed; for he argues,[ that the Cause he pleads, the command in the Decalogue will bear, and that the Sabbath hath an original right by birth, amongst the society of the Decalogue, the reason is rendered, because the seventh day, or a seventh day, in a septenary revolution, is expressly commanded] but being conscious to himself that this assertion tends to confirm those rational men, that believe and say, that nothing more nor less is commanded in the fourth Command, but the seventh day Sabbath; he presently falls to contradict both himself and the truth, saying,[ that they speak not only uncertainly but certainly false, who say the fourth command enjoins the keeping of the seventh day, precisely, and that the words of the Apostle seems to lie expressly against it] but the best out is, he neither names the Apostle, nor the place; but you mey well know the reason is, because they are not to be found in Scripture. But notwithstanding these and such like contradictions, yet he goes on to prove the morality and equlaity of the fourth command with the Rest, and amongst many other lively passages, this is one:[ That it hath an equal share with the rest of the nine in all the privileges of the whole page. 186. and this he backeth with pregnant arguments, taking from[ Gods declaring it with his own voice, and writing twice with his own finger in Tables of ston, and saith, it is the Law, God promiseth to writ in the hearts of his elect, and observes that the Church of England prays as well for the writing of the law, of the Sabbath in their hearts, as any other of the nine.] And I shall second the Doctor with this observation, that indeed it appears to me beyond a doubt, that this Law is written fair enough to be red in the hearts of men, and such men who never kept Sabbath, nor never intend to do, should it notwithstanding pray so seriously at the reading of that Law, The Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this Law.  
Another substantial argument he draws from its being lodged in the ark with the other nine, where none of the other Laws were put; and indeed the consideration of it alone is enough to engage any considering person to make great conscience of keeping every tittle of that Law; for who that considers Christ was typified thereby, to remove the curse of the Law, and to writ it in the hearts of his elect, as the D●ctor saith, with what is further urged by him from page. 181 to 193, can well harden his heart so high against God, as to find or seek out inventions to break the Sabbath, or any other of these ten words.  
Next, the Doctor proves the duration and morality of the Sabbath, and that undeniably: unless you will deny the Sun shines when the shadow shows the time of day on the dial. from Mat. 24.20. Mat. 5.17, 18, 19. James 2.10, 11. presently endeavouring to pull down all he had built in saying[ that what he had taught reached not to the seventh day precisely, page. 196] but in the 103 page. I find an argument levied against the whole Doctrine, and scope of his Book, which cuts the sinews and strength of all his design in two. The sum of all which is this, that there is but one Sabbath only spoken of in the Old Testament; for the Doctors business is to find the first days Sabbath, and the seventh days sabbath, both in the fourth Commandment, or else the Book is without design, or the design of it unknowable, but let us see the Doctors answer.  
And first he answers by way of Concession[ That never any sober person fancied two sabbaths in the Old Testament] to which I say, what hath the Dr. been doing all this while then; for he hath written two hundred pages to prove the first day sabbath from the fourth Commandment, the 2 Gen. and Esaiah 58. he need not to have been at the trouble to writ two pages to prove the seventh day sabbath from thence; for that was never any mans doubt.  
Secondly the Dr.[ puts prudent men to distinguish between the sabbath expressed in the Law of our creation, 
But will not the Reader think it strange to find him after this endeavouring to prove 3. Sabbaths from thence, one Moral, and another Judaical, and a third a first day Sabbath of a Gospel Nature.  and the same seventh day sabbath fitted to the Jewish Church State, and the Covenant they were under] But I dare be bold to say that he that can find two such seventh days sabbaths, distinguished in the fourth Commandement, in any Bible that this age affords, is a man of skill, but what if he could find his impossible distinction, he is still but where he was, and neither the Sabbath in the fourth Commandment, nor that fitted to the Jewish Covenant, as he calls it, can be first days Sabbath; he is still as short of that as he was before he distinguished, but he goes on with the like words, till he concludes his answer with this confusion.[ Nor is here the least appearance of two sabbaths, but one only is commanded unto all, and determined unto a certain day, for the use of some for a season] what he means by no appearance of two Sabbaths, is worthy our knowledge; for if he speaks of the the Scriptures, then it is true there is no appearance of any more then one Sabbath only; but if he speaks of his own book and words, nothing can be spoken more false, for he hath asserted two in this very same 205 page.[ The one day belonging to the Covenant of works, and the other to the Covenant of grace by Jesus Christ, and this of the precise seventh day to the Covenant of works] and if there be the precise seventh day, and the precise first day, and these belong to two so distinct Covenants, how can he say there is no appearance of any more then one? and yet he adds in the second line[ But one only is commanded unto all] these thing; hang together like pebble Stones in a Halter; for if one Sabbath be commanded unto all, of what use is the Doctors book in the world, unless to work strife; but he proceeds[ and determined unto a certain day for the use of some for a season] this hath a strange look, what commanded unto all, and yet but for the use of some; but I shall leave this for the Doctor to interpret.  
Next he tells us[ that one day in seven olny, and not the seven●h precisely, is directly and immediately enjoined in the Decalogue] but who knows not how contrary this assertion is, God himself directly in the Letter of the Text, calls the seventh day the Sabbath day, giving both the names to one, and the self same day, as all-men know that ever red the C●mmandments. This he goes over again with, in the next page., affirming,[ The Reasons in the command do no more respect the seventh day, then any other in seven] which how contrary it is to the express Letter of the fourth Commandment, is manifest, but with this notable contradiction[ six days are granted to labour, that is, in number, and not more in a septenary revolution.] Now this is true beyond all reasonable mens doubts, and therefore it is impossible for the first day to be a Sabbath; for though it be often said that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh day to the first; Yet it is altogether impossible to prove it, either by Scripture or antiquity, and flat against the Doctors own words; for if six days in number be granted to work in between Sabbath and Sabbath, as it certainly is in the great Charter of the fourth Command, Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work. Then it is impossible that the first day next ensuing the Sabbath, can be made a Sabbath without the manifest breach of that great grant in that divine Charter confirmed by Jesus the Mediator, to one jot or tittle( which jot is the smallest Letter in the Hebrew Alphabet) now if Christ have established that Law in all its commands and grants, Mat. 5.18. then it is impossible for more then seven days, to be between Sabbath and Sabbath, the next week after the Resurrection without as manifest an entrenchment upon that sacred command where all flesh is thus limited, but the seventh day the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, thou shalt not do any work; now for a man to say so frequently[ the sabbath hath a septenary return, and that its one in seven absolutely, or one in the revolution of seven, and that every week or seven days had a sabbath in it] and that so often repeated, and yet at other turns speak that which is so absolutely inconsistent herewith, manifestly discovering how he was bewildered and hard put to it between the two parties he fights against; to the ●ne he saith[ it began in Paradise and all the Patriarch kept it, and the Decalogue will bear the cause he pleads, and the accepted time of Gods Worship is declared and determined in the fourth Commandment] with many like expressions; but when he speaks to the other party that practise what he teacheth them, then he tells us[ we are unwary and unadvised persons for keeping it, putting a neck name upon it Judaical] and would make us believe it began and ended with the Church State of the Jews and such like contradictions, not only to the express testimony of Gods word, but to his own ●ffirmations plain'd and express in a multitude of places, as in th● 209 page., where he hath to do with those that would have 〈◇〉 ●●bbath Typical, there he riseth up like a giant, and tells ther● 〈◇〉 was given before the first promise of Christ, and that in th● state of ●nnocency, and under the Covenant of works in perfect force, wherein there was no respect to the Mediation of Iesus Christ] now here the Dr. may be believed; but then it is not possible to believe him, when he saith,[ it began and ended with the jewish Church State] nor in those many contradictions to it all along in his Book as in this very page. he undermineth this Building to set up that new device of the first day Sabbath, he fetcheth his compass( as all must do) that have no direct proof, brings in this story,[ Of Christ, laying the Foundations of the new Heavens and the new Earth in his Resurrection.]  
This speech, with more of like sort are not to be owned, and enough to make the Jews abhor the Christian Religion, when so great a Christian Doctor shall speak such things as they and all men know to be so false; such things are looked for indeed, 2 Pet. 3. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. but that need not be, if Christ fell upon this work so long ago.  
Secondly, I answer, if the first day were Sabbath, now by institution, as he saith it is, page. 25, or if he could prove it by express testimonies of Scripture, as he promised to do, page. 17. I cannot believe he would have brought such pitiful proof as this is, that needs proving every word of it, but here is no Text urged for any of these assertions; but if any could have been found, there was great need of them.  
But thirdly, suppose that at the Resurrection there had been the foundation of the Heavens and the new Earth laid, what ground had this been to make the day a Sabbath? without an institution it would have been but will worship.  
But Fourthly, if it were true as it is not, what agreement is there in his parallel? what reason is there that his new Sabbath must begin the first day? the foundations of the new Heavens and new Earth is laid, whereas God did not so, he finished his work before he sanctified the Sabbath, but the Doctor is very forward in the advance of his new Sabbath, not staying till the work is finished; more forward then he is like to have any thanks for his labour at the day of judgement, in the 212 and 213 pages he comes to show[ the sad inconveniencies and confusion that comes by taking out of Gods hand the division between the time that is allowed us for our own occasions, and what is to be spent in his service, and particularly for casting off his example in working six days, and resting the seventh] what for substance can a Sabbath keeper say more, who would not take the D ctor to be one if he were congruous to himself. See also the fullness of his Testimony, pag. 19. 20. where he confesseth[ the day of rest hath uncontrollable testimony in Scripture, in the light of nature, and practise of the Church, from the beginning of the world, not confining himself to Gospel days]( as his own Phrase is) now if the Doctor mean as he saith, the seventh day is the Sabbath by his own words, and as full a Testimony as ever came or can come from the Pen of any Scri●e; for what can be more evident then this, that Gods example leads us to the seventh day, the uncontrouble Testimony of Scripture doth the like, and that this must needs be his meaning, sometimes is evident, see pag. 23. where he hath these words[ This sacred day is called the seventh day, Gen. 2. Exod. 20.] sure he cannot possibly intend any other day, by this proof, nor will the light of nature ever guide us to the keeping of the first day, for that is set up upon the account of the Covenant of grace, if the Doctors Doctrine be true; see his 205 page., where he argues the Case thus,[ That every Covenant of God with man must have one of the seven days of the week for a Sabbath, whether that of works, or that of grace by Jesus Christ] now that which stands by Grace, the light of nature will never take notice of, and the seventh day precisely he saith, belongs to the Covenant of works; now this precise seventh day for a weakly sabbath, is the known day by the Churches practise from the beginning of the world, to this very last age, as may appear by Dr. Heylin● History of the sabbath; where he affirmeth that the invention of keeping the first day by virtue of the fourth Command, was not till the year, 1595 by Doctor Bound, which is but seventy six years ago. Something of what I have gathered up from the second book of his history, I shall here insert, and I find his Book full of pregnant proof from end to end, that none of the professed Christian Churches in the world, East nor West, did never own nor keep the first day of the week as a sabbath; nor did any of them judge the sabbath was transmitted from the seventh to the first day by any Divine Institution; nor was it ever by any accounted more then then other holy days were, of Easter, whitsuntide, Christmas, Saints days, and the Wakes kept for the Dedication of Churches; nor were any of them set apart but by the Church; with an opinion of their being holy, by any commandment of God, or Christ, or any Apostle, but of the Church only; and proves that they were never kept, nor intended to be kept as a sabbath, but set apart, partly for Worship, and partly for Recreation, and that in a case of great business( as Seed time and Harvest it was lawful to labour) and that neither work nor recreation was counted a transgression, if persons did not neglect the public worship, but came to Church. This is the scope and business of his Book.  
And further he affirms, that the first broachers of this invention of the first day being kept by virtue of the fourth Commandment, was not till the year, 1595 by Doctor Bound, whom he prints for a blemish and scandal to the Christian profession, for his affirming that the fourth command binds us to keep the Lords day, as he calls it, as it bound the jews to keep the sabbath, and for saying it is naturally moral and perpetual, see his 8 chapped. pag. 250. and yet setteth the honour of a sabbath on the head of a sunday, as he often calls it. Now I shall name a few of m●ny of the testimonies mentioned in his book, as in his third pag. he ingeniously and truly acknowledgeth, that if the fourth Command were Christs, be naturally moral, it is immutable, no jot or syllable shall decay till Heaven and Earth pass away. And further, that law must stand till the frame of nature be dissolved, and c tes Luke 16.17. to prove it; but he takes it for granted, that the fourth Command is Ceremonial and abolished, as the onely reason wherefore the seventh day is not to be kept now, and in the seventh page. he affirms, that neither Christ nor his Disciples ordained any other sabbath then the seventh day, as if they intended to shift the day, and transfer the honour to some other time, though their Doctrine and practise is directly contrary to so new a fancy; but saith he it is true, that in some tract of time the Church in honour of his Resurrection set that day apart, and going on with the same discourse, he tells us, it was only done on the authority of the Church, and not by any precept of our Lord and Saviour, or any one of his Apostles, nor any precept extent at all in holy scripture for it, and brings in Athanasius, saying, it was taken up by a voluntary usage in the Church, pag. 8. and not him only, but many fathers by name, both in the 7 and 8 pages, and in the ninth page. he urgeth in these words the whole cloud of witnesses, all the catholic Fathers, and in the 11 pag. he twice expresseth it, that in rract of time the Church did solemnize it as a Festival day and no otherwise, giving substantial reasons from the scriptures to prove that neither Christ nor his Apostles had any hand in it; and goes on in several pages to remove such objections as might carry any show of wait in the 22 page., and 4 or 5 pages following he argues the great mistake of that which is urged for the first day from Acts 20.7. and 1 Cor. 16.1. denying that in the 20 of the Acts, there was more then common eating, and affirming that the time was not the first day in neither place, but some sabbath day, and brings several witnesses, both Fathers and Protestant writers upon the place, rendering it sabbath, as Chrysostom, Lyra, Erasmus, Calvin, pelican, gualther, all noted men saith he, who both in their translations and exposition, call it sabbath day, page. 23. and after in the 27 page. cites further witnesses, Victorinus, Strigelius, hurnius, and Aretius, now in the 31 32 pages he gives us this account, that in the first choice of the Sunday for the honour of the Resurrection, the Friday was choose for honour of his Passion, the Wednesday for that on it he was betrayed, the Saturday or ancient sabbath, being the mean while retained in the Eastern Churches, and further tells us, it was the close of that first age before the Sunday had the honour to be called the Lords day, and closes his second chap, declaring, that it is far less dagger to call the first day sunday, then to call it sabbath, it being contrary to all antiquity and scripture; and in the 94 page. he tells us, that for 300 yea●s there was no Law to bind them to keep it, nor any rest from labour or worldly business required upon it, and that it met with such opposition, that it was more then a thousand years after Christs Ascention, before it could attain the State it standeth in.  
In the next place, he saith, they that set it up, may take it lower or quiter away, or settle the honour it hath on another day; and saith it is the doctrine of Schoolmen and divers Protestant writers of great name and credit in the World, as that which no man will presume to say concerning the sabbath, who in the 140 pag●, he saith, it was near 900 years from our Saviours birth, if not quiter so much before husbandry was restrained in the East on this day; and it is observable how much ado there was in all ages from the first making of the Law in Constantines time for a 1000 years together to force the people to keep it, no not so far as to forbear ploughing and Marketting, and all manner of business whatsoever, although the Councells made Canons, and the Kings and Emperours made Laws against it amongst a multitude of Orders, observe one in the year 1444. what time the Arch Bishop Stafford made a Decree, that Fairs and Markets should no more be kept in Churches and Church-yards, nor on the Lords day, or other holy days, except in harvest; this was in Henry the VI. time, pag. 229. And in the 180 and 181 pages, he brings the testimony of more then I can stand to name of modern Divines, asserting it to be a church appointment, and no more voluntarily taken up,( and tells us of a consultation once to change it unto Thursday) among which he names Ursin, Brentius, Calvin, Dr. Prediux, Chemnitius, Zuinglius, Bucer, Billinger, eighteen by name, saith he, and all the Lutherans in General, and by what appears in the latter part of the 6th chap. and several places, the Eastern Churches keep the seventh day all along from the Primitive times to this time; but I am weary of citing testimonies, for if I should gather up all I might, my answer would weary my Reader, he that hath a mind to know more, let him look into the book itself, where he shall find testimony full and clear for this matter.  
Now let every person of Ingenuity and Integrity, weigh the matter, for the Doctor hath not spoken these things at Rovers, but names the councils, the ancient Fathers, the Princes, and the years of these assertions and transactions from the Primitive times, to the year 1636. so I shall leave Dr. Heylins Testimony to be considered, and return again to Dr. own  
Come we now to his 4th. exercitation, in which he endeavours to make us believe the Jews had the seventh day sabbath enjoined unto them upon differing grounds upon the first institution of it, and[ now fitted to the Church State, and suited to the Shaddary Law, and made liable to be abolished with it] and abuseth the Apostle, Col. 2.16. to serve this interest, page. 247. for evident it is, the Apostle names those Sabbaths that are shadow; of the body of Christ, and the Dr. himself hath discharged the seventh day sabbath from being of that number in proving it the Law of our Creation, and naturally Moral, indispensible, and perpetual, and universal, 124, 152 pages, and that this is the 7th. day that must be meant; see the Drs. own Testimony pag. 3. where he complains[ of mens perverting the State of all things made of God] and instances in that sacred day of rest, which God made for the advantage of the Sons of men, and says[ it might be so still, if men were not finding out new inventions) and in the 25 page. he saith( it is both Gods rest and ours, and that from his institution, he calls it my Sabbath, and presseth Gen. 2. and the Decalogue to prove it, and yet more plain in page. 157. he saith, God having finished his work in 6 days, and resting on the 7th. given man thereby, and therein, the Rule and Law of his Obedience and Rewards for him to assign any other measure or portion of time for his rest unto God in his solemn worship, is to decline the authority of God for the sake of his own inventions) and in pag 164 he saith( the Creation of the World in 6 days, with the rest of God on the 7th. and that declared, gives unto all men an everlasting Law) now is it not strange that this same man should follow his own inventions till he quiter faceth about, and faith( the sabbath was Judaical, and is absolutely abolished and taken away, page. 250] but let us see the ground and reason of the Doctors disagreement with himself, and although his inventions be too many, and too troublesone for me to trace, yet I shall take notice of some of them; the first I shall note is this, that he is conceited that there is two seventh days sabbaths enjoined in the fourth Commandment, and the one Moral, the other Ceremonial; the one a seventh day sabbath, the other the seventh day precisely; the one instituted in Paradise, the other at Sinai; this is so notorious, as all men know that are consistent with themselves and truth, that it needs no argument to confute it; for neither in the fourth Command, nor in the whole book of God, is there the least mention of any such thing as a seventh day sabbath, beside the precise seventh day, no such thing will the Dr. find in my Bible, I am certain, whatever he can do in his own. Another of his inventions is this,[ page. 240, that the Law promulgated on Sinai, respected only the Israelites or them peculiarly] but how contrary to truth this is, I doubt not but it will appear evidently, if I live to see the Drs. proof for it; for as yet we have no more for it, but his own bare word.  
Another of his inventions is, that the sabbath and the ceremonial Law is all one, page. 235. stands upon the same bottom as his own words are; but how untrue and unreasonable this is, any man of judgement may clearly see with half an eye, for if it be true that the Doctor saith, and I believe, as well as he, that the Sabbath was instituted in Paradise, and hath its place by birthright in the Decalogue, and is naturally moral, being made or appointed when it could have no eye to the mediation of Christ, as he saith himself, page. 209. then is it impossible it should lose its nature, and that for no fault of its own to be degraded of its birthright, to be made a vanishing shadow:  
Again, his absurdity is as great in endeavouring to make us believe the Shaddowy Law is any part of the Covenant of Works; for how can that be, seeing it was appointed a Law of Ordinances, shadowing the body of Christ, and presenting his death and the benefits of it to the World, until the time of Reformation, Col. 2.16, 17. Heb. 9.9, 10. and although it presented him darkly, as a shadow will a man, not so lively as an Image would; yet it did present him, Heb. 10.1, to 12. v. and so is of a Gospel nature as truly as any promises or branches of the Gospel are or can be.  
Again, in the 229 and 231 pages, he brings forth another invention, but at lame rate, his business is to persuade us that the people of Israel were under the Covenant of works, and that it is his intention to make us believe it; observe his drift in page. 228. wherein you shall have his own words, viz.[ from the nature and tenor of the Covenant of works, so renewed among that people, there was begotten in their minds such a respect unto the rigour of its commands, the manner of their observance or of obedience unto them, with the dread of its curse awfully denounced amongst them, as brought a servile and bondage frame of spirit upon them, in all, wherein they had to do with God, by virtue of the Law and Rule of that Covenant; this frame of Spirit is that which stands in direct opposition unto the freedom and liberty purchased for us by Jesus Christ] and if this be not plain enough, note how he expresseth the terms of the Covenant of Works in the next page., which he concludes they were under. Namely,[ Do this and live, and the man that doth these things, shall live in them, as also, cursed is every one that continues not in all things written in the Law to do them; and in the 231 page., the foundation, matter, manner of Administration, promises, and threatenings of it, were the same with the Covenant of Works] and all this is expressed to persuade us against keeping the sabbath as a burdensome yoke, as appears pag. 229. to all which, I answer. First, these things are asserted by him, with such contradictions, that makes the story in every rational mans account unpossible to be true, as that there was relief against it in the promise, and this is often mentioned, that there is relief against its rigour and curse, but what promise? that is, or how it should relieve men under a Covenant of Works, the Doctor tells us not, nor I suppose never can, if he had never so great a mind to do it; for the Covenant of works will allow no other nor better promise then that name by himself; the man that doth these things shall live in them.  
Secondly, and then he hath other exceptions against his own Doctrine: as that[ the Church of Israel was not wholly or absolutely under it] what the Doctor intends by these expressions is not certain, for he hath the gift to run along with new Notions, and large discourses, that want both explanation and proof, but we must guess at his meaning as we can, and to the best of my understanding, he must mean that they were under part of the old Covenant, but not under the whole of it, or else that they were partly under the Old Covenant, and partly under the new. But let him mean which he will, and what he will, such a particoloured doctrine the scripture knows not, either they were under the Law or under Grace; God hath not two ways to justify and save one and the same person or people, Rom. 11.6. if of grace, then not of works, but if of works, then not of grace; these two Covenants will yoke together in this matter, much worse then on Ox and an Ass, but if he thinks that these sayings of his have any truth in them, he shall do well to help us in his next book, and I would entreat him not to forget to answer this question, how and by what means the Church of Israel came by Relief against the Old Covenant, if they were under it, in whole or in part, whether they had it by virtue of Redemption by Christ, or without it; if by the means of Redemption, how unlike a Christian Dr. doth he writ, let all men judge, that they should be redeemed, and yet remain, and that by Gods design under a Covenant of works for all that? If without Redemption they obtained that Relief, then what should hinder but that all other ages might obtain the same without Redemption, and then to what use will he put the blood of Christ?  
But thirdly, if the matter and manner of Administration, Promises, and threatenings of the Scripture of the Old Testament be the same with the Covenant of works, then how comes it to pass that there is so much gracious acceptance of sinners, and pardon of sin expressed therein? or how shall the two Covenants be distinguished, they be so like one another? it is to be feared, that if such Doctrine as this pass for current, this poor generation will be cheated of their Saviour ere long; for if by virtue of the old Covenant so much happiness can be enjoyed, there will be no great necessity of the new Covenant, or of the Mediators blood through which it only was made: But if these be the grounds upon which the Dr. erecteth his new Sabbath, blessed is he that keepeth it not; for how lamely soever he presseth the Old Covenant upon them, and would flatter them with some relief against its rigour; yet he confesseth it begetteth that frame of spirit that stands in direct Opposition to the freedom and liberty purchased by Jesus Christ, and so by a true interpretation would make us believe they were not redeemed, for if they be, what should hinder that they should not be heirs of the same Covenant of grace, to beget as good a frame of spirit in them as the Doctor himself hath? but I fear he thinks his pen is as much at liberty as some men think their tongues, or else he would never let it run so at random as he doth; for there is of that race that understood the nature of the Covenant God made with them as well as the Doctor doth who were as free from a spirit of bondage as he is; and if he should offer to compare with them for eminency in grace I should take him for a proud man, but strange it is that a Dr. of his Learning and parts should be ignorant that it is reckoned by that great Apostle Paul, the great privilege of the Gentiles, to be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of the same promise in Christ with them, Eph. 3.6. Note also, the context in the chap. before.  
But fourthly, if the Doctors book should fall into the hands of the Jews, how can he choose but think he enforceth them to scorn the Christian Religion, can they ever believe that God hath a greater kindness for the Gentiles then he had for the seed of Abraham, he must make them very fools before they will entertain that story.  
Again, with how high a hand d●th he establish them in their unbelief; for they say and believe that the Covenant their Fathers and themselves are under, is a Covenant of works, and that it afforded them promises and mercy, and that they have acceptance and pardon upon, and for offer●ng sacrifice, and doing such things as the book of the book of the Law requireth; now the Dr. for substance saith, the same thing in terms plain enough in those three pages last name, and when they shall get such a Testimony for their bad and unbelieving principles, from a professed Christian Doctor of so great famed, Oh how will they bless themselves; for it is well known that the ground of their rejecting the Lord Jesus, is their not believing that great truth of the Gospel, namely, that the old Covenant, since it was broken by sin, will not save any sinner, but that God might be just in showing mercy to sinners, he gave his Son for a Sacrifice, that through his blood he might make a New Covenant, that might run upon more gracious terms or better promises,( as the Scripture phraseth it) then the first had, this if you could persuade them of the truth of, and that all the grace and kindness that they and their Fathers enjoyed, came this way, as indeed the truth is, they would soon believe in Jesus Christ, for they look not for a Messish more holy, nor one that shall confirm his Doctrine by more or greater miracles, or any more excellent qualification then he had, been their alone quarrel against him, is for pretending to die for the forgiveness of sins, and to open a door of salvation; a work they conceive they needed him not for, but only to set them in a Kingdom state in this world: now if the Dr. had studied their hardening in unbelief( as God forbid I should think he did intentionally) yet if he had, he could never have taken a more mischievous course to effect his design, then to tell the Jews, the Church of Israel stood, or was put under a Covenant of work, by God in the wilderness of Sinai, and that the matter and manner of administration and promise, be the same with the Covenant of works. These two conclusions will roundly and rationally follow, that certainly, if there had been any such new Covenant that had been better then the Covenant of Works, it would have been made at that time, or before, that they might not have lost their share in it, and to persuade them against this conclusion, is to tell them nonsense for Reason; for who in his right mind can believe that a people of such glorious promises, and partakers of such signall-love, should not stand under a Covenant, as richly advantageous for the Salvation of the soul, as ever God intended for any other people in the world.  
The second conclusion is this, and it runs as clear, that if this great Christian Doctor speaks the truth in saying, that the matter and manner of administration among the Jews is the same with the Covenant of works, then can the Christian Religion be but a mere cheat; for impossible it is that it can be a part of the Covenant of Works, if it be what all Christian Preachers have pretended it to be hitherto, for they have all pretended till now that the Mosaical Ordinances were shadows of the Body of Christ, and if they had indeed been appointed to such a Service, then would they have been of the nature of their Gospel dispensation, and so would have preached Righteousness by grace, through the mediators blood, to whom, and to whose death, they pointed, and so could not have been the same with the Covenant of Works; for if they be so, then they would have been out duty by Creation, although we had not sinned nor fallen in Adam. Thus hath this Doctor contradicted all his Brethren the Apostles.  
And thus may the poor Jews go on triumphing against the Christian Faith and Religion, to the further hardening of themselves and posterities against their Saviour, and their own souls; but I cannot stand to answer all, nor many of the absurdities I find in this book, nor yet can I let some few more of them pass without some little examination, page. 232. he saith[ ● Sabbath or an holy rest belongs unto every Covenant between God and man] to which I say first, how came the Dr. to know this, unless some text in holy writ had  told him so; but suppose I let the Doctor have his saying about his new found Covenant; for I suppose it is as new to other men, as it is to me; namely, that Covenant of Works that is not absolutely so, nor so in whole, but judaical and Ceremonial, beginning and ending with the Church State of the jews.  
I say this Covenant, and that which was a Covenant of works absolutely, and so in whole, both these C●venants although he will have them to have two Sabbaths belonging to them, the one to continue, the other abolished at the Death of Christ, yet he cannot deny but the very self same seventh day was the day of Sabbbath to them both; now if that day served two Covenants turns, wherefore may it not serve the third Covenants turn also? I should say if there were so many, for indeed I never understood more Covenants then that of works, and that of grace. To which all other Covenants mentioned in Scripture do refer, or are branches or fruits of it. That which he pretends was made with Israel, can be no other but one of his inventions, but, here it is possible the Dr. may stumble and miss his way, that because God brought Israel by a solemn agreement or Covenant to submit to his will, and calls elsewhere, the ten Commands, the first Covenant, and the old Covenant, he therefore concludes that God made a Covenant of works with them, imposing those hard terms he speaks of upon them; the man that doth these things shall live in them, and cursed is he that continues not in all things written in the Law to do them; else I cannot see how he comes to run into all those extravagancies with which his book abounds; but although that great mystery may require a volume by itself( which I am not without thoughts of) yet thus much I shall say here, that no such Covenant was intended by the Lord to yoke that his dear people appears plain enough, Rom. 10.5, in these words Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the Law, that the man that doth those things shall live in them.  
From which place it is evident, that God expected no such legal obedience from them, for Moses is but here said to describe the Laws righteousness, and to let the Jews know, or any that were polluted with their principles, that if they would have Righteousness by the Law, they must have it upon those impossible terms, as also to let them know upon what terms the world stood; in the day of innocency, the Chief design being to put men upon seeking righteousness by Christ, as appears by the words before, and that Evangelical obedience only was the utmost God expected at their hands, see the words following: but the righteousness of Faith speaketh on this wise, the word is nigh thee in thy mouth, and in thy heart. I need not repeat all the words, but every man that hath any reasonable understanding, may see that God required no other obedience from them, but the obedience of faith; to the which they were graciously enabled by the mediation of Christ, that shall but compare, Rom. 10. Deut. 30. now for the Scripture calling this Law the old Covenant, it is unreasonable to suppose it so, from its being declared at Sinai, but from its being given to Adam in innocency; for this see the Synods large catechism, where it is proved with great authority.  
One thing more from this part of the Book I shall note, and that is, the Doctors great mistake of Pauls sense of Gal. 4.24. his sense is that of Gods Law by his design, or the Laws unsteady, genders to bondage; whereas it is evident from the scope of the place, that it is the trusting to the works of the Law for righteousness that genders to bondage, through mens error and corruption, perverting the mind and council of God in trusting to the Law, for that help which it could not relieve them withall; and so I shall come to consider how well the Dr. performeth his promises in the beginning of his Book, pag. 24. he saith[ that the day of Sabbath is now instituted under the New Testament] an institution all men know is an appointment from God, or some one or other by his authority. This if the Dr. perform, I will promise conformity if the Lord will, for he is so fair as to promise to proceed in his proof by express testimonies of Scripture, and without the light thereof, he saith, we had better set still: also page. 16. he would not have men think their opinions firm and established upon the seeming countenance of two or three doubtful Texts, and therefore in the 18 page. presseth the exercise and best improvement of the use of our Reasons, to judge of the clearness of the proof by scripture testimonys. Now here is as much ingenuity in these acknowledgements and promises, as can be desired, and if the performance be but according, there is no reason but to subscribe.  
My intention is therefore in the reading of these two last exercitations, to say little to some discourses that I meet with, but carefully to mind what is brought of clear and express testimony from Scripture for his first day sabbath, knowing how little the Drs. own words have signified in his four first exercitations, although there be ten times more of them, then there be of Gods words there, yet would I not wrong him for a world, for I freely confess to his praise, that when his concern lay to convince the men that are for no Sabbath, he proves the seventh day sabbath substantially from the Scriptures that will bear it so, that I need not say any thing more then he hath said for me, having no other but our Scripture weapons to defend himself against them; but when he takes up arms against us, then we have words enough of his own, if that would serve the turn; but if in the reading of these 255 pages, I had found but one line of Gods words that had proved the first day the sabbath, either a changed sabbath from the seventh day, or a new instituted sabbath( for there is great difference between these two) it would have satisfied me, but to find such a multitude of Notions without proof, when proof was so needful, and when every notion wherewith he would persuade his Reader to believe the first day is of divine institution, needed proof as much as that for which it was brought. I then thought it high time to take a more exact view of his book, and to open the treasures of it unto the world. And now to his fifth exercitation, the which I find for the most part of it filled with new inventions, I shall begin with the 362, 363, 364. pages, as the top of the leaf directs me, where I find him telling it with as much confidence as if it were so indeed[ that his Lords day hath an institution in the New Testament, and that on this day of his Resurrection he began and finished the new Creation of Heaven and Earth, and that then all the stars sang together, and all the Sons of God shouted for joy] these three strange stories will never be proved, if he should writ as many Books to do it, as a Porter can carry. But the fourth is worse then his fellows, for he affirmeth:( if that be but a sufficient proof) that with the institution of his new Sabbath came in a new law, and the new covenant of grace, the very naming of these things is enough to reprove them; what is become of the natural Moral Law now? that is perpetual indispensible, and universal, but this is the fruit of writing great books about matters unwritten; I mean in holy Scripture, they use to forget at one end of the book, what they wrote at the other, but he might have done well to have  told us what Law this is, and where it may be found, for I remember no text in the Scripture looking that way, except he should put it upon that text, Heb. 7.12. which speaks of the difference between Melchisedeck's Priesthood and Levie's, which would be impertinent to this business, but then he saith, came in the Covenant of Grace, and Law of Faith, forgetting what is written in Heb. 11. chap. and Rom. 4. chap. and Gal. 3. chap. with much more if needs were, but a woeful thing it is to hear such Doctrine from a Doctor of Divinity, for nothing is more certain then this, that there is no salvation by the Covenant of works, except we can be saved without justification, see Rom. 3.20. but I forbear naming Texts, because it is the tenor of the Gospel; and therefore if the new Covenant of Grace entred not till the Resurrection of Christ, Adam and his whole posterity that dyed before his Resurrection are eternally perished without any remedy.  
These Shipwracking Doctrines this man hath run into, to father that human invention of his first days Sabbath upon Jesus Christ. For, right or wrong, upon him he Fathers it, as a proper Gospel new Covenant Sabbath, which he saith,[ the Church could not pass one week without] pag. 365. but I have two considerations to lay before him, before we can agree. The first is, how he can prove it is possible that the Institution of this Gospel Sabbath must be before the week was passed, unless it had been Instituted upon the first first day of the week that Christ was risen, but on that first day it is certain it was not kept as a Sabbath, nor as a holy day; for although the Doctor hath the confidence to draw so large a confusion from the 20. chap. of John. Yet manifest it is that the day there mentioned, was the same day, Luke in his 24. chap. gives an account of the two disciples traveling to Emaos, and Christ with them, and came back that evening, which going and coming was fifteen miles, and came to an assembly of his Disciples met in the night following that first day, which the Doctor pretends was instituted a Gospel Sabbath, one of his vain inventions; for it is evident that the two disciples did not believe he was risen till the first day supper time; nor the assembly of his Disciples till the night following that first day; nor is there one word recorded out of Christs mouth about keeping it then, nor at any other time, nor could the next first day be the instituted sabbath, for although the Dr. takes the liberty to say our Saviour left Thomas under his doubts till the next first day, that in the presence of his Disciples he might convince him; Yet with his leave the Text saith, after eight days, John 20.26. and this first appearance was upon the second day of the week, therefore he is an ill reckoner of the times if he bring it back to the second first day after his Resurrection: but this is a small fault with him, so that the time he saith, it was instituted, is manifestly a mistake.  
But the second consideration I shall lay before him is this, to desire him to help us in this great matter. First, how we shall come to understand three several Sabbaths, of a quiter differing nature, commanded in the fourth Commandment, one a seventh day sabbath, naturally, moral, perpetual, indispensible, universal, the Law of our creation commanded in the day of innocency, when it could have no eye to the mediation of Jesus Christ. Another the seventh day precisely, commensurate to the Church-State of the Jews, and to begin and end with it. A third commensurate to the Covenant of grace, and of a quiter differing nature from both the other, which was not to take place in the world, nor to be observed till the Resurrection of Christ. These are of great concernment to be cleared, which this book hath not done, although it hath asserted them; for they are a piece of a very new and deep Divinity, or else a very deep pit to snare poor ignorant souls, but besides, how this Gospel-Sabbath he talks of, if there were such an one, should come to eat up that paradise institution of the seventh day sabbath sanctified, then when all things were very good, and could not possibly be appointed with respect to the Gospel dispensation, or any end the Dr. assigns it to, is meet to be further examined and cleared; for doubtless it is a miracle altogether as great, as it is for a Priest to make a new Christ of a piece of bread, but let us now come to consider of that Text where he layeth the stress of his institution of the first day sabbath, Heb. 4.10. for he that is entred into his rest, hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Before I come to examine the Text, I must put him in mind of his own good rules, 16, 17, 18. pag. to which good Laws if he had bound himself, as well as his Antagonist, he would not have alleged this Text to prove the first days institution. For first, this Text is too doubtful for a conclusion of so great importance. Secondly, there is in it no expressness of Testimony, and so by his own Law he had better have sate still. Thirdly, no mans reason but the Drs. own, can understand this Text as the Dr. doth, for himself confesseth in the same place, page. 377. that generally Expositors be of another mind. And now to the Text itself; for him to take upon him to expound the word he in the text to be meant of Christ, when the verse before expressly nameth the people of God, and the verse following doth the like, but no mention there of Christ. Secondly, nothing can be more evident then this, that the Chapter treateth of that Glorious rest prepared for the people of God, in another world, which the Unbeliever will fall short of. But not a single word about the first day of the week; it is not so much as name there, nor is there any mention of any Institution of a Gospel Sabbath, more nor less; nor is there any ground for him to suppose that any such Gospel Sabbath is needful, for the world had stood by virtue of the Covenant of Grace, almost 4000. years before the Resurrection of Christ, and had as true a share in his Blood and Gospel promises, as those have that came after him, and that live in the world at this day, and no such new Covenant Sabbath was necessary then, nor can I see any reason wherefore it should be thought so now by any, but only men of new inventions, and that their state was a Gospel dispensation before Christs coming, as well as since. Take one Text instead of many, in this fourth of the Heb. 2 ver. For unto us was the Gospel preached, as well as unto them; words plain enough to prove that a Gospel dispensation as well as this, but because it is to the best of my knowledge, no learned mans judgement to differ from me in this matter but Mr. own,: I shall say no more to it, but give him one reason more, wherefore his new Sabbath is needless, or rather dishonourable to God, for it cannot be denied, but when God gave the Law of the Sabbath, it was holy, just, and good, nor can there be any colour, reason, for its degenerating of itself; but it must be as good a Law now, as when it was first made, unless the sin of man have made an alteration. Now can it svit with Scripture, or any wise and good mens reason to believe, that because wicked men make voided Gods Law, that therefore God joineth with them, and maketh voided his own Law: but if any should object, that the works of Redemption hath made a nullity of it; I answer, that is as absurd as the other. For what sense or possibility is here in this, that Christ should come to redeem us from the curse of the Law, as the Scripture saith he did, Gal. 3.13. and from the obedience of it, also these two ends are absolutely irreconcilable, but if the Dr. should come in, as a man alone, and say, that the Law that enjoined the keeping of the Sabbath from the beginning, injoines the keeping of the first day sabbath( as in some places of his book seems plainly to be his sense) yet this cannot help him, but rather shows him to be a man that needs no man to contradict him, but he can do it fast enough himself; for manifest it is, that it cannot agree with what he here saith, and in the scope of this fifth exercitation is often asserted, Namely, that his first day sabbath comes in with the Covenant of grace at the Resurrection of Christ; and was appointed for the honour of beginning and completing the new Heavens and new Earth by Christ, with many like expressions, quiter contrary to what himself asserted in the former part of his book, concerning the morality of the Sabbath, as you have red a little before, which, without all controversy was, as hath been said often, of the same birth and dignity with the rest of the D●calogue, and so cannot be of the nature of the gospel, but it must have been the duty of the world, if we had kept our innocency, and therefore to think that this Law of the Sabbath, and his gospel Sabbath( if such an one there were) both stand by one and the same command in the Decalogue, is below a rational man to believe. Now for his other Text, Acts 20. 1 Cor. 16. they have been discharged of the service the Dr. would put them to, by myself, and many other, long since in my queries to the Ministers of London, and in the appeal to the Parliament; to which I shall add thus much, that all that he can urge from these Texts, is no ground of a sabbath, for if they were, the Thursday will bear away the Bell from the Sunday; for on that day at night was the institution of the Lords Supper, and on that day he ascended to his rest in glory( this is beyond a dispute) but did not rest on the day he rose, as hath been proved; nor can the Dr. prove the first day is name, in those Texts, the word being one of the Sabbaths, let him ask his Greek Testament if I lie, and for Rev. 1.10. I onely say, if the Scripture had in any place called the first day of the week, the Lords day, then that Text must have had some consideration. But for him to interpret that Text to be meant of the first day of the week, is to beg the question; in this part of his book I find him insinuating this leaven into his Readers ear in many passages, that the Apostles and Apostolical Churches owned and kept the first day of the week as a Sabbath, instead of the seventh day; to which I answer, that for those red in antiquity, he cannot deceive them, but the most that may see his book, I fear may be too apt to pin their ears to his lips, for whose sakes I would have him remember what is written, Deut. 27.18. Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way, and there will come a day when all the people shall say Amen. For the truth of this manifestly appears in the second Book of Dr. Heylins History, to which I shall add the testimony of that learned Scribe, Dr. Prideaux, in his book of the Sabbath; who affirmeth, that the first day of the week in those purest times, was never kept as a Sabbath, but the seventh day was kept by them without noise or scruple; and that all antiquity is so manifest for this, that places need not to be name, with more to the same purpose. Also in the same book he dissuadeth from pressing any Texts of holy Scripture to prove the first day kept by divine authority, saying plainly, that if we meet with an Antagonist that will not be easily baffled, there is nothing in the Scripture that will bear it; but indeed it is vain for us to expect that Dr. own should deal faithfully with antiquity, when he dealeth so unfaithfully with the Law of God, as in page. 399. he affirmeth, that[ the seventh day sabbath is not direct y nor absolutely required in the Decalogue] and instead of offering any proof from Scripture, to show that he might be allowed by the sense of some other Text to deal so with the fourth Commandment, he goes on with one quibble upon another, till he would needs put this absurdity upon his Antagonist, that in case they will not allow more sabbaths in the command then the seventh day, that then we must red it, the seventh day is the seventh day; just as if we must be as absurd as himself; for what need we red the seventh day the seventh day, so long as God hath warranted and commanded us to red the seventh day the sabbath of Jehovah thy God; but now let us look into the root of this cunning fetch, whether he hath a real advantage given unto him, or makes bold to take one without leave, thus to quibble with God and Man, and you shall presently see how he suck's it out of his own fingers by his[ is, and his[ a] is often repeated a seventh day and a seventh day, is another of his own inventions, for there is no such a seventh day in Gods word, and therefore so oft as he hath used it he hath profaned Gods word, and so his holy name and will, ill answer it one day unless he repent. So likewise for his is, it is the same, a mere human invention, there is no such is in the Commandment, as the seventh day is the sabbath, let him leave that out, and red the commandment as it ought to be red, the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, giving the same day both the names, seventh and sabbath, as God himself doth, and then let him see how many sabbaths he can find in the fourth Commandment, more then the precise seventh day sabbath: if he were an ignorant man he were the less to be blamed for his mistakes; but he may know, A and is which he hath built his Judaical and new Covenant sabbaths upon, are not in the fourth Commandment, and this is the commendation of learned Ainsworth, although he were for the first day sabbath, as many other good men were, yet this is his honour, that he to favour his private opinion never falsified the sacred text, but translates it faithfully, and where he puts in suppliments, he so puts them in, that all men may see what is in the Hebrew Text, and what not. I shall writ what he translates, as Gods own words; Remember thou the Sabbath day to sanct●fie it, six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy work, but the seventh days sabbath to Jehovah thy God, thou shalt not do any work. So that let the Doctor red no more then the sacred Text hath in it, and he will never find more then one seventh days sabbath, but in his 407 page., he would fright us from Sabbath keeping, by threatening an Impossibility of Communion with them that keep the first day, but he may be mistaken, for it may be some of those men that keep the first day, may not be so shie of Communion with us as the Dr. is; but if they all should be of his mind, if they be men of no more skill in preaching the Gospel, then he hath in handling the Law, the loss will not be great; but in the next page. he seemeth to discourage sabbath keeping, from what the sabbath keepers hold touching the penalty for breach of it; but all I shall say to this matter, is, that he that would know our sense herein truly, may see best in our own words; my answer to Mr. Grantham, will not only speak for myself, but also for the generality of Sabbath keepers in the land, to the best of my knowledge, which if the Dr. had red before he had printed his book, he would hardly have found any argument thence to discourage Sabbath-keeping, but it were well if the Dr. had  told us wherefore he calls that penal Law the curse of the Law. I would hope he should have more judgement then to think that bodily punishment in this world is all the curse that the transgressors of Gods moral Law are like to meet with, or that Christ came into the world to destroy civil Government, and to set free from punishment evil doers, or to transform Gods Law into the Dr. knows not what. For, if he have any good meaning, it is hard to understand it, for in the whole discourse following, he talks at such a strange rate, as if sabbath keeping necessary brought men under a yoke of bondage, using many hard speeches, either against us, or against Gods Law; but plainly upon sabbath keeping his charge is, which in reason must reflect upon the service and work done, and on men only as the doers of it. For he saith, it is a yoke of bondage to the persons and spirits of men, and pretends it unbearable and against the mind of Christ, 409. page.. But by the way there should have been some clear proof of these high charges; but this is like to tarry till the Dr. writes another book to prove those many assertions in this that pass without proof hitherto. And now I shall to these charges say, First, this cannot be charged on us, our well known principles and doctrine be as purely Evangelicall as the Doctors, for his life, looking for righteousness by the works of the Law, no more then he doth, nor can see no manner of reason, wherefore we should be in any more danger of that snare in keeping the Sabbath, then he is in keeping the first day; but the charge must lie against the Sabbath itself. Therefore we must search out the reason: and in the next page. the Dr. he gives us such as he hath, he would make us believe it is at open contradiction with the spirit, rule, and word of the Gospel, and contrary to the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. To all this I say, That if this be the nature of the sabbath to work us such ruin, how cruelly did God deal with his people Israel, to command them a service, which set them at odds, both with spirit, gospel, Christ and all, for we have our liberty in him by virtue of his death. But certain it is, Nehem. 9.13, 14. was not of the Doctors mind; for had he took it to be so destructive to mans happiness, he would never have numbered it among Gods great mercies to come down upon mount Sinai, to make known to them his holy Sabbath, And the Dr. confesseth it was the precise seventh day sabbath that God fitted to that Church State, and he fitted them with a witness, if the Drs. Doctrine be true, to set them at open contradiction with all their great and eternal happiness.  
But secondly, it is something strange me thinks, that Sabbath keeping should be so dangerous, seeing it is of the same birth, and hath the same privileges with its fellows in the Decalogue: Certainly, if the ten be of one birth and breed, and one of them of so ill a nature, the Dr. had need to consider whether he hath not opened a gap to Rantism wider then he will stop in hast.  
But thirdly, if sabbath keeping have no consistence with Christ, his spirit, and Gospel; He that believeth this can never believe that any happiness by Christ was intended for them that were enjoined to keep it; a Doctrine as black as hell; let him turn it which way he will, for if he say they are perished, the blackness of that may be seen without Spectacles; if he say they might be saved without him, that is as bad, if not worse, as will appear( if he should say it) if he should say they might be saved by Christ, but we cannot. How plainly doth this condemn the design of his whole book, for hath it not been his main work hitherto to persuade us the Jews were under a Covenant of works, and had a sabbath suited to that dispensation, And the new Covenant came in at the Resurrection of Christ, with a Gospel Sabbath suited to this dispensation. But if he confess they might be saved by Christ, then it will roundly follow that he had as true a share in Christs blood as we, and so were as truly under the Covenant of grace, for other ways they could not be saved by him, and if so, it cannot be denied but their state was a Gospel Dispensation; and if so, then the precise seventh day sabbath suited the Gospel dispensation very well: and then what is the Drs. book good for?  
Now let us see how he winds up this discourse in the 411 pag. there he asserteth the seventh day sabbath,( for of that he treateth) is a mere precept of the old Law as such; and what the Law speaks, it speaks to them that are under the Law. To which I say, I freely confess it is a precept of the old Law, what will he have out of this, if he speak this to persuade us that because it is so, it is truth, and must be walked in, as 2 John 6. It were like a Minister of the Gospel; but his scope sheweth he hath a quiter contrary end, viz. to disparaged God, Law, because it is ancient. Neither is there any doubt but the Law speaks to those that are under it; but wherefore doth he urge it so perversely? It is evident the Apostle, Rom. 3.19. urgeth it to prove, that it is all the worlds duty to own its authority and power, to command obedience at their hands, and to humble them, and stop their mouths before God, because they have no better obeied it; but this Dr. hath a quiter contrary design, he aims to get from under its dominion, and because it is severe over the soul and conscience of those that are under it, therefore he talks of extricating himself and those he can persuade to follow him from under its power and authority. A braive bait for the flesh I confess, if it were but as safe a way to the Crown, there were no course like it, but least any should think I wrong him, take him in his own words,[ in all its precepts, it exerciseth a severe dominion over the souls and consciences of them that are under it, and we have no way to extricate ourselves from under that dominion, but by our being dead unto its power and authority as such, through the death of Christ] Now let us examine the drift of this discourse, and first to the first words of it. In all its precepts it exerciseth a severe dominion; here we are to note his quarrel in the first place is with the sabbath, but it seems not with that only, but with all the precepts of the Decalogue, and wherefore could he not have  told us so at first, but to led us along with strange stories, first, of a Moral Sabbath, then of a Judaical Sabbath, then lastly of a Gospel Sabbath, never heard on in the world before; with this riddle, that the fourth command is the root of them all, although the last be of a Gospel nature, pertaining to the Covenant of grace; and when all comes to all, the business is this, that all the precepts of the moral Law are too streight a yoke for the Drs. neck; and let us consider his reason for it, and that is expressed in these words. Over the souls and consciences of those that are under it, Mark this reason well: men that sometimes steer the course of error with a high hand, yet the truth will drop out of their mouths sometimes against their wills, for by the rule of his own reason, here some are under it, and that it hath so just an authority over them, that it binds their souls and consciences unto obedience, for nothing can bind the conscience but just authority; now if just power bind the consciences of some, I cannot see how any can be justly discharged of the same obedience. But then the Dr. tells us, we have no way to deliver ourselves from under that dominion, but by being dead unto its power by Christs death. Well let this be considered also, and by the way, it would be known whether there be any difference between extricating the Law itself, or ourselves, from under its authority but let us consider farther how we do or can become dead to the laws authority by the death of Christ, for as he hath expressed himself, I am a stranger to the matter, and to the best of my knowledge the Scripture is so also; I very well remember the Apostle, Rom. 7.4. tells us, we are become dead to the Law by the body of Christ, which, if he expound, it is meant of his death, I will allow it him, but he must remember that this death to the Law is in order to fruit-bearing unto God, and not to its just power and authority in commanding obedience at our hands; Christ never dyed for any such unworthy end, therefore let him not slander Christ whatever he casts upon the Sabbath-keepers; but this I shall say for my brethren as well as for myself, we are all of us of the Apostles mind, quiter dead to the Law, not having the least hope or expectation to bring forth any acceptable fruit unto God by virtue of it, we look not at all to receive grace or strength from the Law, to sanctify us, no more then to justify us. But what then? because it will not serve our turns instead of a Saviour; Must it be turned out of all office, and be degraded of its dominion, power, and authority? So that it shall not bind our consciences to obey it? We have better learned Christ then so, to make him the minister of sin. This doctrine of being dead to the authority of the Law, would please the Antinomians,( the Fathers) very well, and the Ranters( their children) as well, but the Sabbath-keepers like it not: But then the Drs. heart misgiving him, as I am apt to think, in this rash undertaking, to discharge believers of their obedience to Gods Law, upon the account of Christs death; seems in his next words rather to put it upon the score of his actual obedience in these words[ or by faith in the benefits, that through his fulfilling and satisfying the Law, do redound unto the Church] To all which, I say, I have heard the actual obedienee of Christ abused enough before now, but I never heard any man say before, that Christs obedience to Gods law should discharge the Church from her obedience thereunto. But the Lord deliver me from being a member of that Church, that makes no conscience of keeping the ten commandments. But a passage or two more I shall note. Among other unsavoury sentences this is one[ do men appeal to the Law, to the Law they must go] just as if there were no possibility of yielding any Evangelicall obedience to the Law, but that it must be kept for to obtain righteousness or justification, or not keep it at all; but he proceeds.[ Its a mere legal duty, properly so called, and in a bondage frame of spirit without any especial assistance of grace it must be performed] who would think that such words came from a Dr. of Divinity, how much less from him who hath asserted in the beginning of his book, the natural, morality, indispensibleness, and universality of obedience due to this very Law, that he now thus brandeth with the Characters of legal and bondage, and threateneth men that they shall have no especial assistance of grace to perform it. But that which is worst of all is, that he Fathers this Doctrine upon some author or other, under the name of our Apostle( which men that red not, nor heed not the Scriptures, may think he means some Apostle of Jesus Christ, but such Doctrine as this I am well satisfied never came from any Apostle, except from some one or other sent forth from the City of atheism. The last exercitation of his book) if it concerned the Sabbath, or that it were directions for the right observation of it, I could not well agree with the Dr. in all things: but seeing it is a day of human institution, human directions, about the manner of its observation, may well serve the turn. And so much for this controversy at this time, the third month called May 24. 1671.   

A POSTSCRIPT. By way of an Appendix, in a Brief answer to a late Book written by Mr. Richard Baxter, upon the same Subject.  
I See I am called in this evil day to a difficult work( namely, the defence of Gods holy Law of the ten Precepts, Exod. 20.) which is not so in itself, no nor yet is it difficult for want of a cloud of witnesses that have gone before, giving great light to the perpetual continuance of this Law, as a rule of life to all men; but it is only made difficult through the manifold and mischievous inventions of men, that would break this Golden Chain, to rob it of that sacred day which God himself hath sanctified, and most solemnly commanded for his Worship, every one bringing forth of his bad treasure new inventions against it, and all worse and worse: and among the many opposites it hath had of late, I have yet seen none that have matched Mr. Baxters; shooting such bolts as I never expected would fly out of any Protestants Bow: Now indeed I do not judge it worth my precious time, to trace this man by a particular answer to all the parts of his book, but the most I intend is to deal with him where his strength lies, in his seventh chap. yet I must give the Reader to take notice of Mr. Baxters wil●ss, the business he hath to do is to prove the cessation of the seventh day sabbath, as appears pag. 1. a work impossible for him to do, either by Scripture, or antiquity, if antiquity were as considerable as he would make it. Antiquity may pass for a proof of what the custom of the Churches then was; but it is notorious Popery to urge it as a proof of what ought to be. And yet Mr. Baxter confesseth in his Preface, the stress of the matter lieth here: and persuades his Reader, that the Christian Churches meeting on the first day is a sufficient proof, that Christ instituted it instead of the Sabbath, and then draws this bold conclusion, that the cessation of the sabbath is proved thereby; but neither of these is sound Doctrine, the Churches meeting on the first day is a silly proof for its institution by Christ; for if ancient custom will go so far, what branch of Popery must be rejected? Neither if he could prove by twenty Texts of Scripture the first days institution, it will not follow that the Sabbath should be ceased ever the more for that; the reason is, because Mr. Baxter, and all that pled the first days cause, do it for the honour of the Resurrection, and completing the work of Redemption, and such like pretences, is all their ground for it. Now this can go no further if they had some Scripture for its institution, then to prove it an ordinance of the Gospel, such as baptism and the Lords Supper is, but no Law from the fourth commandment, for that was not ordained to set forth Christ crucified; but to commemorate the creation of the world: But let us examine this mans proceedings, and this title he fixeth to his first chap[ the Divine appointment of the Lo●ds day proved as a separated day for holy worship, especially in the Church assemblies] where note, first though the title promises a proof of the first days being of Divine appointment, yet there is not one Word or Text of Scripture in all the chap. so much as name for proof thereof, but this is delayed, till the text can be found that asserteth it, which is not like to be till we have some new Scriptures written. Secondly, you may note the lameness of that expression[ a separated day for holy worship, especially in the Church assemblies] you may well see by this passage how true the Testimonies are of Dr. Prideaux, Dr. Heylin, and Dr. Ironside, who all agree, that the first day called Sunday was never kept holy by the ancient Churches, nor no restraint from labour nor recreation, but Church assemblies only kept up, and to work again. See Dr. Heylins book of the Sabbath, &c. what I have noted out of it in my answer to Dr. own, nor can I find that it was ever better kept in the primitive time then Wednesdays and Fridays, but all kept alike till of late years, and although neither of the three Drs. were sabbath-keepers, nor intended it the least service: yet it is plain to all unbiased men that shall red their books, that the primitive Churches kept the sabbath for some hundreds of years: See more of this in my answer to Mr. Grantham also; for I am not willing to writ over those things again; see also Dr. Prideaux testimony in the Rams horn sounding how express it is: and Mr. Baxter knowing the truth of these things doubtless to save his credit, expresseth this so often especially in Church Assemblies, that if any red in antiquity should rebuk him for false flying antiquity, and tell him that for some hundreds of years it was left as free for field husbandry and all manner of labour as the other days of the week were, he might have this creeping hole to save himself, and say, he often expressed it was kept holy in Church assemblies; but is it not a miserable thing to consider that a Preacher of the Gospel should carry it at such a rate to deceive the ignorant, to writ so as at least to make them think the first day was kept holy from the very days of the Apostles, though himself knows the contrary; And,  
For his second Chapter, that Christ commissioned his Apostles, he might have saved that labour, for that is no mans doubt. And for his third, that he promised them his spirit, it is work as needless. And for his fourth, that he performed his promise, might have been spared as well as the rest, here is clear proof for that which needed no proof. But for the fifth chapter that Christ did actually separate the first day for his worship, one text that had said had been very needful; but this was not to be found in the Scripture, for if it had, it would have served the turn, and it would have saved him the labour of writing all the rest of his book: and for those Texts alleged by him, 1 Cor. 16. Acts 20. Rev. 1.10. I refer him to those three Doctors before name, for if in his own judgement there had been any Text that would have served his turn, he would never have exalted tradition as he hath done, nor put such a whip into the papists hands to lash his own back. pag. 52, 53, 54. But it is worth noting, that where he hath to do with Dr. Heyli●, who would neither have the Sabbath, nor the first day kept holy, there he is necessitated to prove the perpetual observation of a weekly day for Gods worship, from Gen 2 Exod. 20. which all men know hath not the least sh●w for the first day, but for the seventh day only: but to note a passage or two more ere I leave this chap. about the 57, 58, 59, 60. pages, he would bear his Reader in hand with as much confidence as if it were true indeed, that the first day was owned as an Apostolical appointment universally instead of the sabbath, and that there were no dissenters; but either he is not so skilful in the knowledge of antiquity as he makes himself, or else he acts with a bad conscience; for if there were not dissenters in this change, the council of Laodicea had never made a law to excommunicate such as would not work on the Sabbath day, and keep the first day; see Mr. Brabourn on the Sabbath, against the ten Ministers, pag. 482. and in the 63 page.. Mr. Baxter would make us believe( if God in his mercy did not give us more wisdom and grace) that no[ single verse or Text of Scripture hath authority without Historical Tradition.] But by the way, first no jesuit or Roman Priest could have said more, nor can there be a fairer foundation laid for Popery and taking away the Scriptures from the Laity. But secondly, tradition, which this mans fabric is built upon, agrees not with itself; the fathers were of different minds, and speak many things darkly, and were failable men as we are, and many of them superstitious enough, and no wonder, for it came on apace in Pauls time, 2 Thes. 2.7. their testimony for what is done I do esteem, but to say or think, that all they did was well done, is wicked, and of no better use that I know of, but to make provision for the Popes kitchen.  
But thirdly, if what Mr. Baxter saith be true, what is become of the many ten thousands dead and living that have believed the Scriptures to be a sure guide to direct them to please God, but never knew what was contained in Church History. But if this man be not facing toward Rome, yet he cannot well blame them that may have some fear of him; for in my judgement he gives some occasion for such a jealousy, but yet I have so much charity for him as to think the necessity of a bad cause puts him upon this temptation, For less it cannot be then a very sore temptation doubtless to magnify so high, some Articles of faith whatever he means by faith or articles, without the knowledge of the Scripture, and makes the Scriptures doubtful without tradition, page. 65. I wonder what articles they are that are not grounded on the knowledge of the Scripture, or how the believing such Articles can be counted faith, or if a man should doubt of Scripture authority, how human history can remove that doubt: but for the name he hath given the first day, frequently calling it the Lords day, I wonder where he found it? for from the first and best antiquity he had it not, as Dr. Heylin witnesseth, and from Rev. 1.10. he hath in not, for he can never prove from Gods word, that the first day of the week is so name; nor is there any good reason to believe, that in the beginning of the reformation the Godly here in England had any such esteem of it, for if they had I am apt to believe we should have found it in the Common-Prayerbook; but there they knew it by a more common name, there it is numbered with the Church holy days in the rubric by the name of all the Sundays in the year, and that antiquity as well as Scripture falls short of answering Master Baxters desires, take one note more from the testimony of Dr. Ironside, who among other passages wherein he proveth the first day was never kept by divine appointment, in the 222, 223, pages of his book of the Sabbaths he saith thus, The whole Christian Church in all ages have delivered this for an undoubted truth, and abhorred a Jewish resting on the Lords day, and ever accursed it where they found it, with more to the same purpose; but to prove the first days institution, Mr. Baxter takes pains to produce from history these instances; namely, that we could not know whether baptism were administered in the form of words Christ commanded, nor with what confession of faith members should be received into Church-Fellowship, or whether the Lords Prayer were used in the words commanded, but for Church History: and then triumpheth in these words;[ I think now I have fully proved to sober considerate Christians, that the Lords day was appointed by the Apostles peculiarly for Church Worship.] Now indeed it well becomes s●ber men to consider the congruity of this argument; is it not a worthy proof that the Apostles appointed the keeping of the first day holy, because Church history tells us how they used to baptize, receive members, and pray, he that cannot see sufficiency of proof in this, must not believe what Mr. Baxter saith[ to the preamble of the sixth chap. I say that if Mr. Baxter had or could prove that the Apostles had appointed the first day to be kept holy, the sabbath-keepers would n●ver have doubted but the spirit of God had guided them therein] his large proof for that is needless, but one text to prove that ever the Apostles did appoint it, would have saved him that labour and a great deal more.  
But now to the seventh Chapter, where the main work lies, his question is, whether the seventh day sabbath should be kept still by Christians as of divine obligation: and he answers negatively; but to his negation I say his very question is a grant at unawares, that it ought to be kept by himself, if he be a Christian, for that which is one Christians duty is anothers also, but he consents Christians were formerly to keep it by divine obligation, or else what means the word, should be still kept by Christians, if it had never been to be kept by them, he begins this chapter with three promises, the first is this, It's an error he concludes, superstitious, troublesone, and of evil consequence to keep both days, against this I have nothing to say; the second is this, that it is less dangerous to keep both, then to keep none; and to this I only say, bad is the best; his third is this, he thinks to keep the seventh, and neglect the first day, is worst of all; his reason is, it is to sin to reject the right day, and to keep the wrong. To this I say, first, to the first part of this surmise, it is not what Mr. Baxter thinks, that is our rule to square our conversations by, but we know it is Gods holy Word and Law that must be our guide, and he saith, and we dare believe, six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work, but the seventh day sabbath to Jehovah thy God, thou shalt not do any work: to keep the seventh day God saith is our duty, Mr. Baxter saith it is a sin. Which must we believe? for both cannot speak truth, and I am persuaded God cannot lie, but he goes on to deny the seventh day sabbath, and argues it at such a rate as makes my heart to tremble to red it.[ That day which we are not obliged to keep by the Law of nature, by the Law positive given to Adam, the law given to Noah, the law of Moses, nor the law of Christ, that we are not obliged to, and that is the seventh day sabbath. Before I come to examine this proof, I would have the unsavouriness of his terms noted, as 1. the Law of Nature; 2. the Law given to Adam; 3. the Law given to Noah; 4. the Law of Moses; 5. the Law of Christ. What would Mr. Baxter have the ignorant gather out of all these distinctions of laws left without explanation? is it not easy to gather that there is five sorts of laws, that in several ages have born rule in the world: and that which is the law to one age or sort of men, is not a law to another; and can any man think that less then ●his lies in his own conceit, and these laws of a quiter contrary nature one to another; rendering God as silly and changeable, as the weak shallow witted sons of men. Now for those two sorts of laws he pretends were given to Adam, a Law Natural and a Law Positive, if he had explained himself to this effect; that when Adam had broken the Moral Law, God in mercy to let him know his love in Christ, gave him the Shadow law by Positive command, this had been to speak like a man of understanding; but he speaks of a Positive moral law, such as the ten commands, it is evident in the next page., where he confesseth the seventh day to be Adams day; and sure he cannot have any place in his head so soft as to think the Sabbath was given as a shadow of the body of Christ before the fall; nor can any man be so silly as to think the Sabbath was not sanctified in innocency that will confess it was given to Adam at all; seeing the creation of man was the last work God did before he sanctified it; and the Scriptures declare that all things were very good when he did it, Gen. 1.31. Gen. 2, 1, 1, 3. and wherefore he should dream Noah had another Law given him, and not that which was given to Adam no Text or reason is given, nor none to be found in the Scripture; nor will he be able to prove with seven years study, that Moses and Christ had any laws of their own, or that there ever was or will be any more then one and the same law to all the world, if he speak of moral laws to govern the conversations of men in godliness and righteousness, such as the ten commandements be; but what I might further say to this Scripture-destroying argument will fall in, in the examination of his proof he brings for it. Now to the first, that the law of nature bindeth not to it, this is his proof. 1. In the nature and reason of the thing, nature will not evidence it to be Gods will; to this I answer, how comes he to be wiser then God? God brings reason from nature, to teach and convince us of our duty to keep the seventh day sabbath, Exod. 20.9, 10, 11. he there sets his own example both in working and resting before us to follow, and tell us what his work was; namely he made us and the world, and all things in it for our sakes, and sanctified the sabbath for us likewise; for it was made by him for man or for Adam, as the word imports, Mark 2.27. now stronger natural reason, more convincing and obl●ging to a duty I no where find; and these reasons are the same to all men and times so long as the Sun and Moon endures. And if mans own being, and the whole frame of nature be no natural reason to teach and persuade us to our duty, with Mr. Baxter I shall leave him as an unreasonable man. Natures voice cries loud enough for this commandment, to all that have reason and will use it; but he goes on and tells us, no man finds himself convinced of this duty by more nature, but to this I say nature preacheth this law, a duty as clearly as any law, except the first command, the book of nature, I mean his glorious works of creation and providence do prove there is a God beyond control; so likewise they do as truly declare that the season he sanctified to commemorate this work, is most meet for his solemn Worship of any day in the week; but sure he hath some other opinion of nature, I am apt to think else he would never deny the Sabbath to be a natural moral law, but I fear he thinks that the corrupt heart and blind mind of sorry fallen man, should find out this duty without any other help, if it were the will of God it should be now kept, but if this be the thing he calls nature and reckons it a guide to find out Gods law; I do not wonder at his opposition to the Sabbath, nor at any error that he shall receive, be it never so gross. What may not come in at this door, the doctrine of the purity of nature without blemish? for if it be polluted, it must be in the understanding as much as in any thing, but polluted it cannot be, if it can find out its duty in all natural morals. For further, there is no reason to believe it could ever see, and free-will is and must needs be ●he top bough of this three; but let it be once admitted of, and then both Quakers and Ranters will rej●yce over it, and I am apt to think it will be found to bear very hard upon some principles, that may deserve rebuk from his brethren, but I am in some things willing to forbear him, to see whether all his brethren have so great a quarrel against the Sabbath, so as to root it out, and care not how Religion and the Scriptures suffer thereby. But I desire him and all m●n to consider, whether this plea for Sabbath-breaking will not altogether serve to excuse the Papists in breaking the second Commandement every whit as well.  
Now to the next head in his Argument, there he first denieth the positive Law given to Adam before or after the fall, or to Noah, bindeth us to this duty; his reason is, because, saith he, we are under a more perfect Law; what he means by the Laws given to Adam and Noah after the fall, I do not know, nor is it material to this business; but for the Law made to Adam before the fall, Mr. Baxter is the first man that I ever knew deny that to be all the worlds duty, the Synod of Divines in the Book entitled, Articles of Religion, Printed 1648. have so fully proved the truth of what he denies, that I need say no more, but that it is his great shane to gainsay so learned and godly an Assembly, without taking off the weight of their large proof, but he goes against the known judgement of all godly Writers, Dr. own and all, and leaves no business for Christ to do in the world for that sort of men at least that are not bound by that Law given in innocency; but his reason of this denial is as bad as the denial itself, for he saith, we are under a more perfect Law, and that more imperfect ceaseth. Now Reader, if thou beest not an Atheist, here is enough to open thine eyes to see the Sabbath thy duty, by the light of those Arguments brought against it; thou seest Mr. Baxters strength against it lies in this grand blasphemy, that Gods Law moral, given to Adam before the fall is imperfect, even that Law so magnified for its perfection in the Scriptures, Psal. 19.9, 10, 11. Psal. 119. from end to end, of which it is said, that it was ordained for life, Rom. 7.10. which cannot import less, than that it would have perpetuated the life of the world to eternity, in the same happiness in which it was created, if it had been kept by them; and although we are grown worse, yet the Law retains its perfection, as appears, Lev. 18.5 Ezek. 20.13, 21. Rom. 10.5. Gal. 3.12. Now he that can take the boldness to fly in the face of G●d himself, and disparaged his perfect Law, what may he not say, or who can believe him when he may speak truth, or who can excuse him from being one of those that have spoken hard words against God, judas 15. If ever any man deserved to be reckoned a blemish and a scandal to the Christian profession, he may, who saith, that the Law given before the fall is imperfect. But now if any man should think he may have strength against the Sabbath, although he have so dreadfully missed it here, I say for the information of such, all he hath or could say in comparison of this, if it could have passed for current, had been but like small shot in a Birding-Peece against a Castle wall, of no signification with any man of judgement; this Cannon shot would have brought it down, and all the Towers of Religion to boot; he is the hardiest man that ever ventured an encounter against the Sabbath. But although Dr. Ironside were against the Sabbath as much as Mr. Baxter can be, yet he knew this was too high an attempt, and therefore saith chap. 3. indeed had it been given to our first Parents in Paradise and state of innocency, as it must universally have bound all men, so neither could it have been in any thing ceremonial relating unto Christ, and we must still have kept that day on which God restend. And again in the 70th. page. he saith, The Sabbath must be the same with the seventh, or else there is no tolerable sense or congruity in that Law. His second reason is, Because saith he, the Law or Christ containeth an express revocation of the seventh dayes Sabbath; but I say, it is sad to hear a reason with never a word of truth in it, for there is not one word in the Scriptures for revoking it, and it is very necessary that in his next Book he distinguish between Gods Law and Christs Law, if Christ have any Law of his own, that is none of the Fathers; but I am apt to think it is a mere device Satan hath buzzed into Mr. Baxters ears, to lay more stumbling blocks in the way of the Jews conversion: but when he should prove this strange new fashioned reason, he adds( as shall be shewed anon) but that non will never come while Mr. Baxter lives. Again, his third reason is this, God never required two dayes in seven, and the first day being proved to be of divine institution, the cessation of the seventh is thereby proved. The first part of this reason is only true; God requireth but one Sabbath in a week, and all that can red English know that the Scripture saith that that is the seventh day, and if men had either fear or shane, they would not say the first day is of divine institution, but if it could be proved, as it never can, the consequence would not follow. His fourth is, that Infidels are not bound to keep Adams day,( as he scornfully calls the Sabbath) for want of notice. To which I answer, 1. It is not granted him that any want notice of it that are found in their duty seeking after God and his holy will, or shall not alway want the knowledge of him, if they seek as they may. But 2. I say, Ignorance will be no excuse at the day of Judgement, God is not bound to come from heaven every age to proclaim his Law, or to proclaim it at every mans door, or else he may pretend want of notice. But 3. Mr. Baxter may do well to consider whether there be any greater Infidels in the world than those men that use to red, But the seventh day Sabbath of the Lord thy God thou shalt not do any work, and pray over this Law, Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this Law, and yet never keep it. 4. and lastly, Mr. Baxter himself wants no notice of it, and it can be no excuse for him not to keep it, because some poor Heathens may not know it, and how far soever mere ignorance may excuse them, yet this is far from Mr. Baxters case. His 5th. is expressed as a probability that Christ and his followers would have mentioned this positve Law, if it be binding; a very strange thing for a man of his parts to bring such quibbles, against a Law so delivered, as he confesseth that Law to be, whether there had been any after mention of it or no. But I wonder how he can be so blame-worthy as to deny the Sabbath to be mentioned by Christ and his Apostles; manifest it is that he would not hav● us think he useth to red Matthew and the Acts, or that he strang●ly forgets what he reads. If it had been spoken in Queen Maries dayes, he might have thought to save his credit, because few if they could have reproved him, durst do it, for fear it should be known they had a Bible, and so might be burned for heretics; but now every Boy and Girl can take notice how broad Mr. Baxter can speak; and for his saying, he never heard the Sabbath pleaded otherwise than from the fourth Commandement, I must beg an excuse for not bel●eving him. Next he persuades us, the Law of the fourth Commandement binds us not, because saith he, Moses Law never bound any but Jews and Proselytes that voluntarily subjected to that policy, with other frivolous matter, calling Moses Legislator, just as if the Law had not been Gods, but Moses Law. but 〈◇〉 is not easy for me to believe that he is such a Baby in Religion as he makes himself, for how came the Law to bind Jews and Proselytes and no body else? can he think God made his Law for such a certain plot of ground, and for all that should dwell upon it, and leave the rest of the world lawless? for if it were made for men, what reason can there be wherefore it should not bind one as well as another, gentle as well as Jew? and if he do not purposely make himself a child to deceive others, I cannot tell how he should think otherwise; for were not the Proselytes Gentiles of other Nations, and if those Nations were not bound to keep Gods Law, how came those Proselytes to be bound to keep it? for impossible it is that if it had not been Gods will that they should proselyte themselves to his Church, and keep his Law, their doing such a thing of themselves could not have pleased him, it could have been but Will-worship, and God and his people Israel also might well have said to them, when they came to offer themselves to the Church, Who required this at your hands? The difference he would put betwixt the ten Commandements written in nature, and in tables of ston, is insignificant with all wise and considering men; the talk he makes of Laws positive, formal, and natural, is a parcel of ambiguous words, which being left without interpretation, tends to deceive the simplo, to make them believe God hath several moral Laws, and some bind one age and sort of men, and some another. And then another device is, to load it with names to make it look like a monster, the Jews Law, Moses Law, materially it is this, and naturally it is that, and formally it is nothing at all, and all these shifts are nothing but a pack of devices to led the Reader into a wood, that he may there lose the Sabbath, and not know where to find it in the midst of this confusion. But the truth is, Rome is honester than all this comes to, for although she have thrown out Gods holy day, and set up her own in the stead of it, yet she is so honest as to tell u● so, and not to deceive us with lies, and father them upon the Scriptures; for the Question is about the ten Commandements, and Mr. Baxter can find no other moral Laws but these amongst all his five sorts of Laws, for if he could, he would doubtless have name them, and  told us where we should find them, and how we should know them one from another, but this is a work too hard for him; for the truth is, the Law given in innocency, whether naturally or positively moral; the Law of righteousness Noah kept, the Law condemning sin and commanding righteou●ness in the New Testament, the Law written in tables of ston, all of them-in all the dresses Mr. Baxter hath or can paint them out with, are but the very same Law expressed, Exod. 20.3. to the 18th. and this I would prove before I went further, if the Assembly had not saved me this labour in the forementioned Books. And for his calling it the Jewish national Law, never given to any other people, it is so strange and contrary to the whole Book of God, as also to all Authors that ever were accounted orthodox, that I need say nothing to so blasphemous a device, especially seeing this and such like absurdities are asserted by him without all show of proof. But lastly, he concludes this story with this bold affirmation, that in Moses dayes this Law bound no Nation but the Jews, and therefore saith he, it needed no abrogation to the Gentiles, but a declaration that it did not bind them; to which I say, this declaration that the ten Commandements never bound any but the Jews, was never made before by Prophets, Apostles, or any godly labourers since their time; only now you may take notice it is Mr. Baxters declaration, but who commissioned-him to put forth this declaration, himself must give an account, for I find neither Author nor Text for any such thing, only Mr. Baxter saith it.  
His next is this, The whole Law of Moses formally as such is abrogated by Christ; mark Reader this doctrine, 1. He saith, it never bound any but the Jews. 2. He saith, it is abrogated by Christ formally. Now if this be true, that the form of Moses Law Christ hath abrogated to the Jews, and it never bound the Gentiles, Mr. Baxter hath at once discharged all the world of all obedience or regard to be had to the five Books of Moses; for how can any man be obliged to regard a Law that concerns him not. Secondly, This roundly follows, that the doctrine of the Prophets which naturally dependeth thereupon, must fall of course, and can be of no use to the world. What he means to do with these blind stories I know not, unless it be to bring in Atheism by whole sale; but I desire him to consider that whatsoever mischief he doth else, he cannot do a greater to the poor Jews for his life; for can the Jews believe, or any body else that hath common sense, that the Prophet mentioned, Deut. 18.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. instead of speaking Gods words like unto Moses, should come to abrogate Moses Law? Now if this doctrine come to the ears of the Jews, and they should come to Mr. Baxter, and ask him, Whether it is his own doctrine and conceit that the Messiah abrogated Moses Law? Or whether he hath sufficient ground to conclude that it is the doctrine of Christ himself? What would this man say? If he took the shane of it upon himself, what could they judge of him? If he should put it off from himself, and say it was Christs own doctrine, how could they choose but rejoice and bless God, that neither they nor their Fathers ever put their trust in such a Saviour; and how can they choose but look upon Mr. Baxter as an addle-headed man, to separate from the Church of Rome for breaking the second Commandement, when Mr. Baxter himself saith, Christ hath abrogated all the ten. But to stand to answer all his impertinent expressions, and to discover how he wresteth the Scriptures in every particular, is too tedious, as the matter of the Law, and the form of the Law, the Law of nature and of Christ. But according to his reasoning, whatever there is of the Law of nature, or of Christ in the ten Commandements, yet as it is written in the Scriptures, he will have it all at an end, else what can be the meaning of this word so often repeated, the whole Law of Moses is abrogated as such. So that any man may see his design is to persuade men to dis-esteem the express Word of the Lord, as it is written in the Scriptures of truth; and therefore we have all this, the Law of nature, and the matter of the Law of nature, a more piece of deceit to blind mens understandings, to keep them from knowing the will of God, for there is no such thing as a Law of nature in any proper sense, nor any other moral Law from the beginning of the world to the end of it, but that of the ten Commandements, as it is contained in the Writings of Moses in the 20th. of Exod. Now this Law may be called Christs Law, as it is revealed, taught, or confirmed by him, or through his mediation, but to talk of any such Law of Christ under any other consideration, is either gross ignorance or nonsense. Likewise this Law may be called the Law of nature, either as the Book of nature teacheth it, or as we by nature, or the Law of our Creation are bound to keep it. But what is all this to make any alteration in that holy and perfect Law of God, the Decalogue? Men may as well talk of more Gods than one, as of more moral Laws than that of the ten Commandements, and as soon it will be proved. Now he hath most notoriously broken the third Commandement in abusing the Scriptures, to make his Reader think the whole ten Commandements are abrogate, which I here set down, Luk. 16.16. Joh. 1.17. Joh. 7.19, 23. Act. 15.5, 24. Gal. 5.3. Rom. 2.12, 14, 15, 16. Rom. 3.19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 31. and 4.13, 14, 15, 16. and 5.13, 20. and 7.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16. and 9. 4, 31, 32. and 10.5. Gal. 2.16, 19, 21. and 32.10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 21, 24. and 4.21. and 5.3, 4, 14, 23. and 6.13. Eph. 2.15. Phil. 3.6, 9. Heb. 7.11, 12, 19. and 9.19. and 10.28. 1 Cor 9.21. Now if naming store of Texts would destroy Gods Law, Mr. Baxter hath laid it for dead, but not one of them is opened by him to show how it serves his turn, but there is good reason for that, because there is not one of them all but what speaks directly against him, or to some other thing quiter different from that he would have it prove. But I must note one passage more, thus expressed by him; It's not part but the whole Law of Moses which Paul excludeth,( which I ever acknowledged to the Antinomians, though they take me for their too great adversary.) Mark this acknowledgement, and see whether he might not well be so accounted by them, but it must then be for hardening of them in their lawless tenants. But he not trusting to all these Texts, presseth another to this service, which he thinks he may argue, 2 Cor. 3.3, 7, 11. for the cessation of the ten Precepts; where, note Reader, his fallacy in picking out some words of the Text, and leaving others, just as the Devil did, Mat. 4.6. in urging Psal. 91.11, 12. to our Saviour; such dealing with the holy Scriptures may, if God prevent it not, soon hatch a brood of Atheists, to render both them and Mr. Baxters painful labours also in former Books, a scorn; for, might not an Atheist, with as good a colour of reason say, the God is dead that brought up the children of Israel out of the Land of Egypt, and name Jer. 23.7, 8. and then say, as his Commentary upon the place, nothing but partial violence can evade the force of this Text. And now to the Text itself, evident it is that the scope of the place is not to persuade the Corinths against the continuation of the ten Commandements, as a rule of life, but to exalt the ministration of the Gospel, as more powerful for the conversion of men unto God, then the ministration of the Law when it was written in tables of ston. For though they had so glorious a discovery of God and of his counsel in that dispensation in that day, yet they remained blinded and hardened for all that; but the ministration of the Gospel and presence of the Spirit with it, had wrought that in the hearts of the Corinthians by Pauls Ministry, which the Jews neglecting and refusing fell short of, namely, a saving, sanctifying faith. For although they did believe Moses, yet rejecting the light of the Gospel that came into the world since Christs coming in the flesh, were still, or became thereby, which you will, so blind, that they understood not the end of Moses Ministry, but red the Old Testament without fruit, as appears in the 14, 15. verses of the Chap. But it will never be proved from this Text, that either the Law itself or the glorious ministration of it either, is done away in Mr. Baxters sense, but to this day the ministration of it shines bright enough, for Dr. own to argue with great authority the perpetuity of the Decalogue. But I shall grant him, that the ministration of Moses there pointed at, is done away in such a sense as the light of the Moon is put away by the rising of the Sun in a clear morning, out-shining of it, as may be instanced from that forenamed Text, Jer. 23.7, 8. Can Mr. Baxter or any man ever imagine, that the dayes will ever come, that the same God that brought up Israel from Egypt, either doth not live, or that men shall either be afraid or ashamed to say he lives, or to make any the least question against the ever-living of the God that wrought that deliverance, but only to signify that there was a work in the heart of the same God to do, which when it was done would out-shine the other. And this any man may see to be the sense of 2 Cor. 3d. chap. that is not wilfully blind, that although the glory of God did shine in his writing the Law to put in the Ark, which according to Phil. 4.19. with other places, if need were, may well be interpnted grace or rich mercy, yet the graee or riches of glory that followed in a more clear discovery of the Gospel, and the gracious ends God had in the then delivery of his law as he did, being now with plainness expressed, Rom, 5.20, 21. Rom. 10.4. with other places, which in that day were darkly hinted, is much more glorious, and this is Pauls sense, as appears in the 8, 9, 10. verses of that 2 Cor. 3. for if it were done away in Mr. Baxters sense, how could it be a killing Letter, a Law of Death, and Condemnation? Sure if it be the Law that bringeth death and condemnation, it must be in force to enjoin obedience. Again, there were no place for Paul to complain of the Jews blindness, and of the veil upon their hearts in reading the old Testament, if it be wholly abrogated; for what makes it matter whether a Law be understood or no, that binds no body, for he  told us before that it was abrogated to the Jews and for the Gentiles, there needed nothing but a declaration that it did not bind them, but I have discharged this Text in an Appendix to Mr. Spittlehouse book of the morality of the Sabbath long ago, or such absurdities Mr. Baxter puts on it, and I shall here give some reasons further for clearing this truth; namely, that the moral law of God, or law of ten Commandements remains to the end of the world a rule of godliness and Righteousness in every jot and tittle of it, therefore the fourth Command must needs remain with the same names God himself hath baptized it with, or with his own mouth given to it, the seventh the Sabbath of Jehovah thy God, which cannot be taken from it without offering much more violence to it, then to rob it of a jot or a tittle. How besides this Text hinted, Mat. 5.17, 18, 19, 20, 21. where it is plain beyond all possibility of denial, that the ten precepts expressed, Exod. 20. are meant or intended; in which words with the context it is most plain, that our Lord would not have us think he came to make voided one tittle of it to the worlds end, but to confirm it a rule of life, to all his disciples, to make them shine as lights in the world; unto which I might add a hundred more, but consider these few most plain and readiest in memory, Luke 16.17. Rom. 3.19.31. 1 Cor. 9.8.21. and 14.34. and 15.56. 1 Tim. 1.5.9. James 2.8, 9, 10, 11. and 4.11. 1 John 3.3, to 12. 2 John 4, 5, 6. all which places be so plain, they need no exposition, but I shall add to these plain Texts these further reasons to prove the perpetual continuance of this law.  
First reason, because it is pronounced by our Lord Jesus himself to be a law of equity, Mat. 7.12. Now whatever is done against a law of equity, is done against equity itself, but manifest it is, Christ commandeth equity, and that from the authority of the Law, therefore he did not abolish it.  
Secondly, it is declared by him, Mat. 22.40. that this law is the Epitome or substance of all the Prophets, and if it be abrogated, the whole old Testament must fall with it of course; but to say that Christ came to abrogate the old Testament, is a Blasphemy high enough for a Ranter.  
Thirdly, this law is the law by which the Lord Christ will judge the manners of all the world at the judgement day, Rom. 2 chap. which could not be except it were a rule of life to all the world.  
Fourthly, it is one great work of the Holy Spirit, to writ this law in the hearts of his people; which would be but a vain work if it were not a continuing law.  
Fifthly, the Law hath an office assigned it, which is of perpetual use to all the world, Rom. 3.20. and 7.7. therefore it must remain a law for ever; for no man can know sin by the law, unless it be his duty to keep it.  
Sixthly, the Law hath nothing in it contrary to the tenderest part of the Gospel, no more then the Faith or the Gospel hath against the law, but they do their distinct offices without jar or interrupting each other in their course, Rom. 3.19, 20, 28, 29.30, 31. and therefore there is no reason wherefore the Law as a rule of life should be abolished any more then the Gospel.  
Seventhly, holiness, justice, and goodness, being the nature of this law, it cannot be abolished, except holiness, justice, and goodness be so also. But this is the description Paul gives of the Law, Rom. 7.12. and in the next words tells us, that there is nothing in the nature of the Law by which man becomes a sufferer but in sin, which is contrary to the Law, and for my part I cannot see no reason wherefore any man should once suppose or imagine he is not bound to keep the ten Commandments, unless he greatly want either wisdom or honesty.  
The eighth reason wherefore this holy Law must needs be perpetual, is, because it was one of the ends of Christs coming, and dying, that his people might be supplied with strong●● of grace to keep it, yea, to keep it ful●y, Rom. 8.2, 3, 4. the words are most express, that the righteousness of the Law m●ght be fulfilled in us, he doth not say for us, but in us; but if they did so say, yet were the proof for this thing strong and clear; for there can be no necessity for Christs fulfilling this law for us, if we ourselves were not bound to fulfil it, and he can never be supposed to design the fulfilling of it, that weekly breaks the fourth Command with allowance.  
Ninthly, the Law hath an unchangeable goodness in it as ever it had, and in and of itself; it will do mankind as much good as ever it would have done, and no more harm then in the day of innocence. For however the Law kills, or condemns, it comes not to pass through any defect in the Law, but through that sinful alteration that is in man, and that the Law retains its primitive goodness, see Rom. 10.5. Now it is against all reason, that Gods good law should be abolished for mans fault. But,  
Tenthly, Seeing the spirit of God hath given this Law the name of a perfect Law, it must needs remain for ever, without the least alteration; for if any thing be added to that which is perfect, it cannot mend it, but blemish it; nor can a jot or a tittle be taken from it, but it must lose so much of its perfection.  
Eleventhly, this Law hath so perfect a congruity with that abiding grace of love, 1 Cor. 13.8.13. Rom. 13.8, 10. that it is unreasonable to think the one can be abrogated any more then the other.  
Twelfthly and lastly, the Scripture expresseth, Gal. 3.13. that the great work of redemption consisteth in bearing the curse of the Law for us, to free us from the curse thereof. And impossible it is that we can be delivered from the curse of the Law, and from the obedience of it also; for it can never curse him that oweth it no obedience.  
And unto all these Texts and Reasons, I shall add thus much; that all the mention that is made of the law in them must of necessity intend that law proclaimed by the Lord at Sinai, if Christ and this Apostles intended any body should understand what they meant by what they said; evident it is beyond all doubt, that those well known commandments they every where inte●d, and for his urging those Texts in the Heb. Ephes. and Colos. as he doth. I only say it is below a man that professeth so much knowledge as to undertake to writ books, to bring those Texts to prove the abrogation of the ten commandments, which never were understood, to be shadows of the body of Christ by any man but Mr. Baxter nor those Texts. Colos. Ephes. and Heb. otherwise then shadows, much less does it become a Minister of the Gospel. For if it be ignorance it is both sinful and shameful; and it must spring from that root or a worse, but this is an ordinary sin with him, to press whole files of Texts at a time, to serve in his warfare, whether they will or no. Now for the Objections and Answers which takes up the latter part of this chap. any rational man may see the lameness of his cause, by his frequent denials and grants, touching the very same law; for when he hath done all he can to render it standing in the book of God for a Cipher, yet can he find no other law of nature, or of Christ, but it: See the 77 page., and note, how far that Text is from serving his interest, with which he would put all out of doubt; page. 80. Col. 2.16. where the Sabbaths there intended are expressly said to be shadows of the body of Christ; which no man will say of that Sabbath appointed in innocency, that is in his right mind, but the seventh day on which God restend from his work he appointed for his worship by Mr. Baxters own confession, 89 page.; but I am not willing to trouble myself or Reader with all that might be answered, except the whole book were more considerable then it is. I find in the end of his book an Appendix, wherein I perceive some worthy pen hath wrote unto him, it may be to stop his course, when he might hear what work he was about, but this is my conjecture. But evident it is, that the reasons given him by that hand are substantial, and grounded upon the Scriptures, and seeing such arguments so headily turned off by Mr. Baxter, with a sound of empty words, makes me to fear that he is a very wilful man, but I will not take work out of so worthy a workmans hand, or else I should not so let Mr. Baxter go. But Mr. Baxter in the end of his Postscript signifieth he will not allow himself to be answered except Doctor Young be answered also; but this sorry shift to stop the Pens of men till he be answered, that hath written as ill as himself, must not serve his turn, he cannot be so excused, as ill I say, if he speak truth, and I was not very willing to take up my time to answer so much of his book as I have done, if there had not been a just necessity. Secondly as a more full answer, if Mr. Baxters book and Dr. Youngs be so near a kin, that the one is an Appendix to the other, more large, but the same for substance, then the answer to Mr. Baxters, answers the Doctors also.   

Courteous Reader, These erratas thou art desired to mend with thy Pen.  
page. 6. l. 18. red to truth. p. 7. l. 33. r. and brings. p. 10. l. 3. r. the Sunday. l. 6 leave out Christ, and add or. l. 15. leave out though. p. 11. l. 33. r. 130. p. 12. l. 15. leave out upon, r. from. l. 16. for shaddery, r. shadowy. l. 32. for given, r. giving. l. 34. r. and for him. p. 14. l. 4. r. at a. p. 16. l. 5. for Covenant of Grace. r. Covenant Grace. p. 18. l. 1. r. Apostles and all. p. 19. l. 26. leave out of. p. 24. l. 2. r. of reason. p. 33. l. 39. r. falsified.  
FINIS.