In 1595, a book was written and published by Dr. Bound, in which the morality of the Sabbath, and a change of the day, was advocated in quite a masterly manner. This excited a controversial spirit, and was soon followed by many others, both for and against his view. The orthodoxal doctrine of the Church of England, by bishops and historians, then was, that the Sabbath had been abolished, and that the Lord's day, so called, was altogether another institution, which could not be enforced by the fourth commandment. Among the men who held this view, we may mention Dr. Francis White, Lord Bishop of Ely, Dr. Peter Heylyn, Edward Brerewood, Gilbert Ironsides, and others. Against these men were arrayed the leading Puritans, who maintained the morality of the Sabbath and the necessity of restraining men by the sanctions of the fourth commandment. Many true Sabbatarians, however, stood opposed to both these parties, maintaining not only the morality of the Sabbath, but the obligation to observe the seventh day of the week. A work supporting this view, from the pen of Theophilus Brabourne, appeared in 1628. He took the position that the fourth commandment was simply and entirely moral; that the seventh day of the week ought to be an everlasting holyday in the Christian Church; and that the Sunday is an ordinary working day, which it is superstition and will-worship to make the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. This view was adopted by considerable numbers in England, and has been represented from that day to this, by men of learning and piety. Many who remained in connexion with the established church, were conscientious observers of the seventh day Sabbath, among whom were several ministers of piety, and authors of eminence.