Of the morality of the fourth commandment as still in force to bind Christians…Of the morality of the fourth commandement as still in force to binde Christians…

though it is such a comparison that never entered into my thoughts, how much less to pass so prodigious a judgement upon the comparison? In the last place, he saith, It was preached in Suffolk, (and that he could name the man, and was present when he was convented before his ordinary for preaching the same) that to ring more bells than one upon the Lords day to call the people unto Church, is as great a sin, as to commit murder; this is more particular than the rest; and had he added one thing more, the evidence had been complete, namely, that as he saith, he was convented for it before his Ordinary, so he was found convicted of it; which if it were so, I wonder he should conceal it; if it were not so, of what credit is this his relation? He adds, that many things to this effect he had read before in the Sabbath doctrine, printed at London for I. Porter and Tho. Man, what this book was I could not devise, but lately have gotten into my hands D. Bounds book of the Sabbath. I find by comparing it well, that this is the book he girds at. Now I find nothing in him to this effect, though I have gone over most of the first book, and in the Index do not find any thing that can give me probability in the second book, tending to any such effect: and I wonder he spared to quote the place where such doctrines are to be found, nothing being more convenient to justify his criminations (than to quote for it something that is to be seen in print) and thereby to clear himself from the suspicion of a malignant. But this Prefacer very judiciously believes him throughout, because the Relator was present when the broacher of the last position was convented for it, yet doth he not say he was convicted of it. And upon what ground he proceeds so judiciously in believing it is remarkable, to wit, because himself hath heard it preached in London, that the Law of Moses, whereby death temporal was appointed for the Sabbath-breaker, was yet in force; and that whoever did the works of his ordinary calling on the Sabbath day, was to die therefore. Now, I profess he seems to me a great deal more politic ⟨p. 164⟩herein than at the first I was ware of: For, had he not believed Master Rogers his report this way, others might have taken as great liberty to believe but their part concerning this.

though it is such a comparison that never entered into my thoughts, how much lesse to passe so prodigious a judgement upon the comparison? In the last place, he saith, It was preached in Suffolke, (and that he could name the man, and was present when he was convented before his ordinary for preaching the same) that to ring more bels than one upon the Lords day to call the people unto Church, is as great a sinne, as to commit murther; this is more particular than the rest; and had hee added one thing more, the evidence had been compleat, namely, that as he saith, he was convented for it before his Ordinary, so he was found convicted of it; which if it were so, I wonder he should conceale it; if it were not so, of what credit is this his relation? He addes, that many things to this effect he had read before in the Sabbath doctrine, printed at London for I. Porter and Tho. Man, what this booke was I could not devise, but lately have gotten into my hands D. Bowndes booke of the Sabbath. I finde by comparing it well, that this is the booke he girds at. Now I finde nothing in him to this effect, though I have gone over most of the first booke, and in the Index doe not finde any thing that can give me probability in the second booke, tending to any such effect: and I wonder he spared to quote the place where such doctrines are to be found, nothing being more convenient to justifie his criminations (than to quote for it something that is to be seene in print) and thereby to cleare himselfe from the suspicion of a malignant. But this Prefacer very judiciously believes him throughout, because the Relator was present when the broacher of the last position was convented for it, yet doth he not say he was convicted of it. And upon what ground he proceeds so judiciously in believing it is remarkeable, to wit, because himselfe hath heard it preached in London, that the Law of Moses, whereby death temporall was appointed for the Sabbath-breaker, was yet in force; and that whoever did the workes of his ordinary calling on the Sabbath day, was to die therefore. Now, I professe he seemes to me a great deale more politique