The Lords Day Vindicated, Tract
A REPLY TO Mr. Bampfield's PLEA FOR THE Seventh-day-Sabbath.
THE very Title of the Book is juſtly lyable to Exception, as that which does not fairly ſtate the Queſtion; the ſecond Enquiry being [whether the fourth Command be repealed or altered] for he very well knows, that theſe againſt whom he Diſputes, even thoſe who acknowledge the Morality of a Sabbath-day, do neither pretend to the Repealing of the Command, nor yet to the Alteration of it as ſuch; for they ſtrenuouſly aſſert the Ratification of the preceptive part of it, though they allow a practical Mutation of a ſingle Clauſe therein; which was at its firſt Injunction, added as a Motive for the obſervance of the Seventh Weekly-day: And therefore he ſhould rather have ſtated the Enquiry after ſuch a manner as this, Whether every Clauſe in the Fourth Commandment be Moral, or whether every Clauſe of it, be abſolutely Immutable, or ſo impoſed from the beginning, as to be ſo. 'Tis not Ingenuous nor Candid, ſo to propoſe the Controverſie, as though the Diſſenters from him, were either Repealers, or Alterers of the Fourth Command. Moreover, the Annexion of this Query to the former, and the Subſervience of the former to this, (For 'tis very evident, that that weighty fundamental Enquiry, is made to ſerve this Hypotheſis, by his Connexion thereof, Page 5. thereto) as though the Immutability of every Tittle to this Command, was founded upon the Deity of our Lord Chriſt, his creating the World, and giving the Moral Law; and the Denial of the one, were vertually and conſequentially the Denial of the other; and ſo thoſe that are for the obſervance of the Lords day, (for ſo I take leave now to call it) are really and conſequentially Ebionites, and Socinians; and ſo worſe then Arians: Which is either to tax them all as groſs Hereticks, or at leaſt ignorant and inconſiderate Perſons, that do either not know, or not heed the direful and damning Conſequences of their own Doctrin. But I hope we ſhall ſee, that either the firſt Query is but little concerned in the ſecond; or that thoſe who are contrary to his Sentiments in this, are throughly Orthodox in that. To which, as 'tis propoſed, with a good and plain diſtinction, may be replyed both negatively and poſitively; that the Lord Jeſus Chriſt made the World, is Jehovah, &c. and that the Lord Jeſus Chriſt was not Jehovah, made not the World, &c. and that altogether according to the Scriptures; and ſo the very ſtreſs of his Argument enervated, and this Foundation of this Structure, ſuppoſed to be eternal and immutable, proved to be Sandy, Temporary and Human; which we ſhall endeavour to evince in its proper place.
I ſhall purpoſely wave any Reflections upon his Four firſt Pages, (though Remarks might be made thereon) becauſe I ſuppoſe if there be any thing which he judges of moment in this Caſe, they are to be found in the following Diſcourſe; to which they are but an Introduction: Only ſhall hint my Belief of his not having ſeen Mr. Warren of Colcheſter's Book againſt Tillam; ſeeing he does not mention him, Page 4. among the Writers he there quotes for the Firſt-day-Sabbath. A moſt worthy Author who has ſo fully and convincingly confuted his Adverſary, that I am prone to believe, had Mr. B. peruſed, and duly ſtudyed him, he would not have troubled the World or the Church, with his Book; and were that Book commonly to be gotten, or a new Edition thereof to be Printed, there could need no other Reply to this; much leſs ſhould I have put Pen to Paper, being ſo far Inferiour to him: However, a Pygmy upon a Gyants Back, may ſee a little farther with his own Eyes.