A LEARNED TREATISE OF THE SABAOTH, WRITTEN By Mr EDWARD BREREWOOD, Professor in Gresham College, LONDON. TO Mr NICOLAS BYFIELD, Preacher in Chester. With Mr byfield's answer and Mr brerewood's REPLY.  
AT OXFORD, Printed by john Lichfield Printer to the Famous University, for Thomas Huggins. An. Dom. 1630.   
Prove all things, hold fast that which is good: 1 Thes. 5. 21. For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth, proving what is acceptable to the Lord, Ephes. 5. 9 10. Holy Father, Sanctify them through thy truth: Thy word is truth. joh 17. 17.  

These faults I desire the reader to amend before he read the book.  
PAGE 9 line 10. leave out and, p. 25. l. 13. read consecration, for, participation, p. 27. l. 17. r. not of the, for, not the, pag. 28. l. 2. r. commandment, for commandments, l. 7. read Gods command, f. God commands, p. 29. l. 26. read greater, for, great. p 30. l. 3. r. per accidens, for, per accidence, l. 15. r. thereof, for, thereon, p. 32. l 4. r. servant, for, servants, p. 30. l. 21. r. respected, for, expressed, l. 29. r. in the Sabaoth, for, in Sabaoth, p. 42. l. 5 r. of the commandment, for, of commandent, p. 47. l. 14. r. their, for there, p. 54. l. 7. r. harvest, for, heaviness: p. 68 l. r. perpetual, for, perpetually, p 79. figure 9 r. volley, for, valley, p. 81. Mr Brerewoods' text should be continued, p. 90. r. short, for shord, p. 91. r. for a great part, for, of a great profit, p. 91. l. 23. r. who, for whose, p. 94. (for) should be out, ib. the, for, your, p. 95. the gap at (appointment) should not be, nor any point.  
Many mispointings, and lesser faults there are, by the darkness of the copy, and the oversight of the Printer, which the judicious reader may easily correct.   

A TREATISE OF THE SABAOTH WRITTEN BY Mr EDWARD BREREWOOD to Mr NICHOLAS BYFIELD preacher in Chester.  
SIR I am but a stranger unto 
The occasion of this treatise.  you, yet I am bold to trouble you, because you have troubled me, with as strange an occasion: There is a young man (one john Brerewood dwelling in this City, but borne in that, whom his Father & Grandfather, when they left this World, left very young. And left he was especially to my care, who am his uncle. That youth I placed here in London, to serve in condition of an apprentice: and placed he is with a man of so good religion report & trade, that if I might have picked him a master in the whole City, I think I should have chosen none before him. In this man's service he hath spent two years and more, and (God showing him, and in his behalf me also more mercy then either of us deserved,) I began to receive comfort of him after some sorrow, that his former untowardness had caused, and to recover good hope, after my former doubt and fear; but yet for all this, God's good pleasure it was to abate this contentment of mine, and by the youths new follies, to bring me into new perplexities, for being not long since sent to Chester about his Master's business, he returned again so strangely altered, that I have seldom seen in so short a time so great a change. For so dejected he was in his countenance, so dull and reckless about his business, so alienated quite from his master, and so obstinately resolved (whether by fair means or by fowl) to forsake his service; that I was not fuller of sorrow to see him so changed, then of wonder to imagine how he became so. And yet the care and pains I took by the endeavour of myself and of my friends to recover and to resettle him, was equal to both, and so much more they were, because I laboured to cure a disease, whereof I could not perceive the cause. For the pretences which at first he made of the unableness of his body and toilesomenes of his service, I know were but feigned excuses, or else complaints of laziness, as being assured that there are 20000 in this City of less bones, that make no bones of greater labour. But the true cause of all this distemper, fell out to be at last a case of conscience (and full glad I was that the case proved no worse) then that he had such feeling of conscience, (for I had imagined sundry others) although it grieved me not a little, to see his conscience so seduced, and the point that pricked him was this: his Master on the Lord's day sent him forth sometimes on errands, as to bid guests, or fetch wine, give his horse provender (which last his Master remembreth not that ever he bade him passed once) or about some other light business. & he was instructed (he said) that to do these things or any other work on the Sabaoth day, although it were such work as might lawfully be done on another day; and although he did it not of his own disposition, but only in obedience to his Master's command; yet was a sin and transgression of God's commandments touching the Sabaoth, and that he was not bound to yield, nay that he sinned against God in yielding obedience to every such commandment of his Masters that day, which by the precept of almighty God was wholly precisely consecrated to rest and the service of God. To this effect (he told me) he was instructed when he was in Chester and that you Sr were his chief instructor, out of which doctrine he deduced (as natural reason rightly taught him to do) that he ought in such cases to reject the comcommand of his Master and in no sort to perform it; which because he could not do without his masters great offence, and his own affliction, he saw no other course to be taken but to forsake his master's service, that so becoming his own Master, he might not be commanded to sin, against God: Which resolution of the young man's being so peremptory, and obstinate, as for a time I found it to be, if it moved me both to melancholy and anger who can justly blame me? For I saw not only a poor youth (my near kinsman) entangled with the conscience of another man's sin, (if it be sin) but withal his utter ruin for his condition in this World hardly ventured, his Master wronged, his friends grieved, and myself especially indammaged, that am in bond deeply engaged for him: and yet this was not all that inwardly afflicted me, but some thing there was beside that might well stir as patient an heart as mine to indignation; Namely because I perceived this doctrine of yours, (whereof this resolution of his proceeded, and his ruin was likely to follow) neither to have good beginning, nor likely to have good ending; but to begin in ignorance and to end in sin, to begin in mistaking the Law of God & to end in the wicked disobedience of seruams to their Masters, & in the rebellious contempt of the laws of men. But for the transgression of men's laws by this doctrine, or the mischiefs that may ensue of it, in the commonwealth, I will not meddle: I will not censure the one, nor divine of the other, you are a teacher of God's word, within the compass of that word I will stay with you and by it, examine with your patience; whether this frame of your doctrine be grounded on the rock or on the sand, on the firm rock of God's law, or on the fickle sand of your own fantasy misunderstanding the law, and so whether it tend to the edification or ruin of the Church; For touching the commanding of the Sabaoth, (upon which I aver this doctrine of yours cannot be grounded) lay it before you and consider it well. And tell me to whom is the charge of servants ceasing from work on the Sabbath 
The commandment not given to servants but their Masters.  day given? Is it to the servants themselves or to their Masters? It is given of servants I confess, their work is the matter of the commandment. But I demand whether it be given & imposed to the servants themselves, or to the Masters whose servants they are? For if the commandment be not given to them, then do not they transgress the commandments, if by their Masters they be set to work, but the Masters to whom the law was given, that the servant should not work, & consequently the sin is their Masters and not theirs: so if the law be not imposed to them, than it requireth no obedience of them, It obligeth them not, therefore is neither the transgression of it any sin to them, but only to those to whom it was given as a law. For the better clearing of which point let me ask you a question or two of other commandments, that for their form are parallel to this, and whereof you have no prejudice. God commanded the Israelites that no stranger should eat of the paschal lamb; again that no Ammonite nor Moabite should enter into the congregation of the Lord, to the tenth generation. Good Sat tell me did the stranger sin if he eat of the passover being supposed invited? Or did the Ammonites or Moabites sin if they came into the congregation being admitted? Did the stranger (I say,) and the Ammonites and the Moabites, in these cases sin, of whom the commandments were given, or the Israelites to whom the commandments were given touching them; no but it is clearly the Lords meaning that the Israelites should not admit of any gentile to the participation of the Passeover, nor receive the Ammonites and Moabites into the congregation of the Lord: Let me ask you one question more, of a case that hath fallen in my remembrance: A precept comes out from the Prince; That every Citizen in London shall on such a day keep his servants within doors and not suffer them to go a broad. If not withstanding that precept, some Master sends forth his servant about his business, doth the servant transgress the Prince's commandment by obeying his masters: Or ought he by pretence of that precept to disobey his Master and neglect his charge? It is plain he doth the former and therefore he ought not to do the latter. For the commandment was given to his master not to him, and the purpose of it was to restrain his Master from commanding such service and not to restrain the servant from obeying his Master if it were commanded: there it is apparent that the obligations of commandments pertaineth to them to whom they are prescribed as rules, and not to them of whom only (as being the matter of the precept) they are prescribed.  
Now that that clause of the Commandment touching servants was not given to the servants themselves, but to their Masters, in whose power and disposition they are, the text and tenor of the commandment doth clearly import; for mark it well and answer me; to whom is this speech directed? Neither thy son nor thy daughter, shall do any work on the Sabaoth day: is it not to the Parents? For can this manner of speech (thy son thy daughter) be rightly directed to any other than the parent, and is not by the same reason the clause that next followeth, (neither shall thy man servant nor thy maid-servant do any work on the Sabaoth day) directed to the Masters of such servants? Seeing that phrase of speech (thy man servant thy maidservant) cannot rightly be used to any other? It is therefore as clear as the Sun, even to mean understandings, (if they will give but mean attendance, to the tenor of God's commandments, rather than the fond interpretations and depravations of men) that that clause of the commandment touching servants cessation from working on the Sabaoth, is not given to servants themselves but to their Masters concerning them. Or if to any dark understanding, which some gross cloud may overshadow, this seem not clear enough, the declaration yet of Moses himself touching the commandment, will make it so: of Moses I say, who can neither be suspected of ignorance, as having been with the Lord 40 days together in the Mountain when he received the tables of the commandments: 
Exod. 24. v 18. Exod. 33. v. 11.  & with whom the Lord talked familiarly, as a man doth with his friend: nor yet of corruption as being by the Lord's mouth pronounced faithful in all his house: he therefore in the 5 of Deuter. 14. (which is only the place of Scripture, besides the 20 of Exodus, where all the branches of that commandment are repeated) after the several prohibitions touching the works of sons, servants, cattle, etc. addeth this Epiphonema: That thy man servant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou: It is to this (thou) therefore to whom this charge is directed that the servants should rest upon the Sabaoth; who can be conceived to be no other than the master of those servants, which yet moreover the reason of that commandment (touching servants rest immediately added) will better clear from all exception; for remember (saith Moses) that thyself wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord thy God brought thee out thence with a mighty hand, and an out stretched arm: Therefore the Lord thy God hath commanded thee to make a day of rest, for to whom was that spoken, remember that thyself wast a servant in the land of Egypt, but to them that had been servants, and now were not servants? Or to what intent and purpose is that (remember) brought in? remember that thyself wast a servant, but to move compassion in them towards their own servants, and allow them a time of rest, having themselves felt the burden and affliction of servants in Egypt, and remembering how glad they would have been of some remission; but if the commandment of rest had been directly and immediately given to servants themselves, what needed any persuasion to that effect? Would not servants, over set and wearied with six day's toil, be of themselves glad to rest on the seaventh? Or would they be so hot set on work, whereby yet they gained nothing, but their labour for their pains, and the profit being another man's, that the commandment of God could not restrain them, but they needed also to be persuaded? Or if persuasion had been needful, were this a convenient persuasion to use to servants? Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt: which even now, when they were out the land of Egypt were servants? And (to proceed with the text) what other importance hath that other reason, which immediately followeth. And (remember that the Lord thy God hath brought thee thence) out of Egypt with a mighty hand and outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord thy God hath commanded thee to make a day of rest. Hath it any other but to declare that the Lord who had redeemed them from their continual slaveries, hath just title & right to impose on them the commandment of the Sabaoth for their servants rest; importing as much, as if he had said, although of thyself thou shouldest have compassion of thy servant and allow him rest. Remembering that thyself wast a servant in the land of Egypt, yet art thou more effectually obliged to do it, because the Lord hath commanded thee. (The Lord) that brought thee out of thraldom and uncessant labours in Egypt, and therefore hath reason to command one day's rest, in a week's revolution (thou) that by his redeeming hand art set at liberty from that labour and servitude. Where mark again that the Lord is said to have commanded them, who a little before were said to be servants in Egypt and by his goodness were freed from that slavery; which reason could not be intended or directed to them, which still remained in servitude. It is clear therefore that all this persuasion of Moses for servants resting on the Sabaoth, was not directed to the servants themselves, who to take their ease on the Sabaoth needed neither to be commanded nor entreated (licence would serve their turn) but to the Masters whose desire of gain, by the servant's labour might stand betwixt the Sabaoth and the servant's rest: and to make an end with the text, with the last words of it: what is it, that the Lord for these reasons commanded? was it barely to keep & observe the Sabaoth, as it is in the vulgar English, Latin and Greek translations? No they are all short, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 
Deut. 5. 15.  is to make a day of rest. Now to make it to be so, importeth not only to observe it himself, but to cause others also to observe it, which is evidently the property of Masters and governors: wherefore seeing both the commandment touching servants rest from labour on the Sabaoth day and reasons added, by Moses to persuade that point, (and draw their minds to obsequiousness) are evidently directed to the Masters and not (neither of both) to the servants themselves, I take it out of all question as clear as the Sunshine at midday, that if servants by their Master's command do any work on the Sabaoth the sin is not theirs, who as touching their bodily labour are merely subject to their Master's power, but it is their Master's sin: for their sin it is that transgress the law. They transgress the law, who are obliged by it: they are obliged by it, to whom it was given and imposed, and given it was as I have plentifully proved only to Masters.  
Or if notwithstanding all these evidences, you will still contend that the prohibition touching bodily labour on the Sabaoth is directly imposed on the servants themselves, see whether you bring not the Ox and the Ass and other cattle also under the obligation of this commandment, whose work is immediately after that of servants prohibited, and precisely under the same form of words, whose labours yet on the Sabaoth I hope you will not say to be in them sins and transgressions of God's law? But as the labour of the beast is the sin and transgression of the Master, to whom the commandment of the beasts resting from labour wasgiven, so is the labour of the servant also, which by the Master's commandment he executed on that day (as being touching bodily service incident to mankind in like degree of subjection) the Master's sin, and not the servants. For distinction must be made between the matter and the form (if to speak in schoolmen's style offend you not) that is between the act and the guilt of sin, of which in this case the act indeed, wherewith the commandment of the Sabaoth is violated is the servants, but the crime and guiltiness is the Masters that sets him on work, for seeing sin formally taken is nothing else but the transgression of the law or unlawfulness (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle termeth it most 
1 joh, 3. 4.  properly & exactly, even as guiltiness is the obligation to punishment, for that transgression, it appeareth manifestly, that his is the guiltiness, whose the transgression is; and his the transgression, to whom the law was prescribed as a rule, & that is the Masters, to whom it is not only imposed that he himself should do no work on that day as a particular man in the first clause: Thou shalt do no work, but also that none of his should do any as he is the Father or Master of a family, in those clauses that follow. Neither shall thy son nor thy daughter, nor manservant nor maid-servant, etc. which latter point touching his keeping of the Sabaoth viz. as the governor of his house, had not been so well provided for, and regulated by the law of God, if these clauses of children and servants abstinence from labour on the Sabaoth, had been given directly to themselves, and not to their governor's.  
But you will reply perhaps that the commandment touching servants rest on the Sabaoth, is given to their Masters indeed, but not only to them, but to their servants also. No such matter; for if it be; let that appear and set down the clause wherein it is manifestly expressed or necessarily implied, that servants are forbidden all labour on the Sabaoth day, as servants I say touching matter of service or labour imposed on them by their Masters, for that in those works which servants do on the Sabaoth day of themselves and not as proceeding from their Master's injunction, but from their own election it is no question but they transgress the commandment: but those works they do not as servants, that is at another's command; but as in the condition of their service, or favour of their Masters they retain some degree of liberty, and have some disposition of themselves permitted unto them, so in that respect fall into the clause of free men viz. the first clause of the commandment: Thou shalt do no work; but to servants as servants (in case they be commanded to work) which is our question, there is no clause of the commandment imposed.  
Whereby may easily and clearly be discerned the difference betwixt the equity & wisdom of Almighty God in the constitution of the law of the Sabaoth, obliging Parents, and Masters and owners, for the children, & servants and cattle that are merely under their powers; and the rashness and iniquity of wretched men interpreting the law as immediately & directly obliging the children & servants themselves: for (good Sir) consider it well, and tell me whether it be more equal to impose the law of ceasing from work to the servants themselves, or to their Masters in whose power they are? Servants are not homines turis sui nor operum suorum domini as Lawyers speak; they are but their Masters living instruments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle termeth them, they have no right or power to dispose of themselves, they cannot play and work at their own pleasure (for this is the condition of freemen, not of servants) but are merely and entirely for bodily labour and service under the power & commandment of their Masters and under their power for service only: in such sort as they can neither justly perform any labour, which their Masters forbid, nor omit any which their Master's command, but are under their enforcement, and punishment also if they disobey. This I say is the property and obligation of a servant, and that by the law of nations, which alloweth, and ever hath done, Masters over their servants (as the law of nature doth Parents over their children) not only a directive, but a corrective and coactive power: So than I pray you (tell me) whether the commandment touching the Sabaoth was not of common reason, rather to be imposed on them which were at liberty, and had power to obey it, then on them which were utterly void and destitute of that power, and liberty? Whether in such a case it were not more reasonable to enjoin the Masters that they should not command, then enjoin the servants not to obey, for the poor servants if their Masters command them could not choose but work, the law of nations bound them unto it, which had put them under their Master's power, and enforcement: but the masters might forbear to command, there was no law, that bound them to that, or enjoined them to exact aught of their servants. It was therefore much more agreeable both to the wisdom and justice of Almighty God to impose the commandment rather on the Masters then on the servants, for thereby was prevented the disobedience of servants to their Masters, & the punishment that might attend on that, and the breach of the law of nations, (all which the other had occasioned) and yet the Masters were in no sort wronged: for their servants remained in their power, no less on the Sabaoth, than the other six common days, only the Lord did qualify, and determine the act, or execution of that power, on the Sabaoth day namely to command their servants cessation from bodily labour & instead of that to exercise themselves in spiritual works of holiness; it was I say (to establish the commandment in such form) more agreeable to the wisdom, and justice of God; and was it not also to his goodness, and compassion? For say that the commandment touching servants vacation was given to themselves, not to their Masters, should not thereby poor servants (to whom every where else the law of God appeareth mild and pitiful) be entangled with inextricable perplexity? For suppose his Master enjoin him some work on the Sabaoth day (covetous Masters may soon do it) especially if they think that precept touching their servant's cessation, not to touch them) or else they may be ignorant of the law of God, (as Christians and jews, may happily serve Pagans) Admit I say some Master commands his servant to work on the Sabaoth, what should the servant do, should he work? God hath forbidden him; should he not work? His Master hath commanded him: for the law of God is set at strife with the law of nations, and that poor servant like the Sailor between Sylla and Charybdis, standeth perplexed & afflicted in the midst between stripes and sin: for he must of necessity either disobey God's commandment, which is sin; or his Masters, which is attended with stripes. Besides it is absurd that the law of God, should restrain the servant from obeying his Master, and yet not restrain the Master from commanding his servant unlawful things: As it is also another absurdity that that day which by the law given was manifestly intended to bring servants release, and remission of their weekly toil; should by the decree of the law itself above all other days breed their greatest perplexities: forasmuch as above all other days (if their Masters be not men that fear God) enforced they are (there is no avoidance) to venture either on sin or stripes, for either God must be disobeyed, and sin cleaveth to their souls, or their Masters; and stripes light upon their bodies, either they must obey God, and be plagued by men; or obey men, and be condemned by God: you will say it is better to obey God then men; and worse to diobey him that can cast both body and soul into hell, then him that can only for a time afflict the body: true, who doubts it? But that is not the point I stand upon; the point is how it agreeth with the tender goodness, and compassion of Almighty God towards poor servants (whose condition is yet honest and lawful) to plunge them into such perplexities, as namely to impose on them a commandment, which they can neither keep nor break without a mischief and inconvenience; neither keep as the servants of men nor break as they are the servants of God: neither keep without sharp punishment; nor break without heavy sin: all which intanglement of servants, and calumniation against both the justice and mercy of God, is clearly avoided, if the commandment be given (as the tenor of it doth simply import) to the Masters, and not to the servants; which I have sufficiently proved, both by the evidence of holy scripture, so to have been, and by the evidence and enforcement of reason, that it should be so. And doth not the practice of holy governors registered in the Scriptures, declare, that they had the same understanding of the commandment? Nehemiah, when he saw among the jews at jerusalem the Sabaoth profaned with treading of wine presses, carrying of burdens, buying and selling, whom reproveth he for it? The servants by whose employment and labour these things were done, and the Sabaoth defiled? No but them under whose power the servants were, the rulers of judah; and what rulers? the Magistrates only? No such matter; but the freemen of judah, that is to say the Masters of those Servants: for such (namely freemen) the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there used doth properly import, not only the Magistrates or rulers of the commonwealth, for the septuagint which (being themselves jews) I hold, best knew the property of their own language; translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word is properly and directly opposed to servants: & every where almost in the old Testament where the hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found (which is known, to signify a freeman) and is translated in the greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is in the chalde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is manifestly known to be the same with the hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but far more usual in the Chaldie tongue. They were the freemen of judah then that by Nehemiah were called to account, and reproved, for the profanation of the Sabaoth by those servile labours which (no question) had been executed by their servants; but if the servants by those labours, had themselves transgressed the commandment: had he not done both justly, to have made them partakers of the reproof, who had been partakers of the sin? (seeing the commandment of God lay equal on both) and wisely to; that if he could not restrain the masters from commanding, yet he might restrain the servants from obeying, and so have two strings to his bow? This Nehemiah did not (who understood well the commandment) but rebuked the freemen, or Masters only, and omitted the servants; and yet, dealt (you will not deny I am sure) both justly and 〈◊〉 for had he done more wisely think you to rebuke servants for not resting on the Sabaoth, that would have rested with all their hearts, if they had not been constrained to work? Or had he done more justly to exact that of the servants which, (for aught that appeareth) the commandment of God exacted not from them? For what work is it that men are forbidden of the Sabaoth? Is it not the same that is permitted on the six days, their own work. Thou shalt do all thy work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. & is it the servants work where about as a servant he is employed, that neither is undertaken of himself, nor for himself? that neither beginneth nor endeth in himself, but beginneth in his Master's command, and endeth merely in his Master's profit; and from beginning to end is performed in his Master's fear? It is manifest that in the account of God, it is not; for God beholdeth the heart, and that is a man's own work with him, that proceedeth from his own will. And therefore in Isaiah: it is the will that is forbidden, about the profaning of the Sabaoth, that which in the law was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy work is there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy 
Isaiah. 58. 〈◊〉  will and that most justly, for the will itself indeed is the proper seat and subject of sin, which essentially is nothing else, but the inordinate, or unruly election, or resolution of the will varying from the Scripture, or God's law (for this very election of man's will, is the proper form of actual sin) these outward unlawful actions of ours, are but the expressions or manifestations or fruits or effects of sin, sin properly they are not which hath her residence, and inhesion in the soul itself, and passeth forth of it only the tincture and evidence & name of sin they carry with them, because they issue from a sinful determination of the will, and are no whit further sinful than they are voluntary. Seeing therefore sin consisteth especially in the exorbitance of the will, they that are only ministers of another's exorbitant will, are only ministers of another man's sin, which so far only becometh their own sin, as their own will concurreth thereunto. The servant therefore doing that work on the Sabaoth day in obedience to his Master, which of his own will and election he would not do, although the work whereby the commandment of God is transgressed, be in some sort his, yet the transgression is none of his, but his Masters, that exacted the work, so that although the work as naturally considered be the servants, yet morally it is the Masters; The labour of it is the servants, but the sin of it is the Masters: for the sin is not the servant's obedience to the Master's commandment, but in the Master's disobedience to God's commandment, which hath indeed prohibited the work of servants in the Sabaoth, but yet the prohibition is imposed, and directed to their Masters not to them, who are only ministers, not authors of their own labours; now in the imputation of sin, difference is to be made betwixt the authors and the ministers. Betwixt the principal, & instrumental agents. For is it the sin of the eye when it beholdeth vanity, and of the tongue when it is loose to blaspheme, slander, lie, or of the hand when it is stretched forth to strike, and shed blood? They may be termed the sins of these members I confess, because in these sins, these members are abused, but are these works properly the sins of these instruments, or of the dissolute mind; of those subordinate Ministers, and servants of the soul, that perform their natural obedience; or of the inordinate soul herself that misgoverneth them? But you may object, that these are 
Objection.  natural instruments, in the works of the soul, and confer only power, but the servant is a voluntary instrument in the works of his Master and conferreth also will: I answer; he conferreth will indeed 
Sol.  if he be a good servant, by reason of the obligation of obedience wherein he standeth to his Master, but yet not absolute but conditional will: not the self election, but only the obedience and yielding of his will; and that only as it is his master's work: not as it is his Master's sin; for the work on the Sabaoth, having sin annexed to it, & so being a sinful work, the servant and the Master must divide it betwixt them: the work is the servants, and the sin is the masters, for the servant doth but his duty, in obeying his Master's commandment, but the Master transgresseth his, in disobeying God's commandment, touching his servants ceasing from that labour: But seeing I have begun to object I will proceed a little farther in that course, both the more evidently to declare my meaning lest it be obnoxious to calumniation, and also to resolve the objections that may be produced against servant's obedience touching work on the Sabaoth if my imagination be so good as to find them, and my learning also to satisfy them. For first, it seems that servants are touching this 
Object.  commandment in better cond●●●on than other men: if by their works on the Sabaoth they transgress it not: and transgress it they do not if it be not imposed on them, but only on their Masters. Touching 
Sol.  them I answer that the works of servants are of two sorts, some proceeding from them as they are servants that is upon their Master's commandment: others proceeding from their own election: unto which namely not by any commandment of their Masters, but by the way of their own desires they are carried. Of the first sort of works they are only Ministers, of the second they are authors. And touching this second sort I confess (although of the former it be far otherwise) both that servants have a several obligation of their own, & that their transgression and sin is several, & therefore that themselves are bound to answer it to the justice of God, but whether the sin of these second works, be peculiarly the servants, or that the Master also participate with the servant in that guiltiness. It may be a question. for if they be done merely by the servant's election (beside the knowledge and contrary to the commandment of his Master) it seems to be particularly the servants sin. But if they be occasioned by the Master's negligence then doth he certainly participate in guiltiness with his servant although in a divers sort, for it is a sin of commission in the servant 〈◊〉 unlawful act, and a sin of omission 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 neglecting his due care, because by the 〈◊〉 Almi●hty God the Master is bound not ●nly 〈◊〉 command his servant to work, but to command him not to work on the Sabaoth day: well than the works which servants do on the Sabaoth day on their own election are condemned: the works 〈◊〉 do by obedience, are excused by their Master's ●mandement; but what works are so excused▪ Ar● all? No; but briefly all those which while they are performed as by the Servants of men, they that d●●●●●m are not impeached for being the servants of God. That is to say the works of labour but not the works of sin: for to the first they are obliged by the law of nations, but the second are forbidden them by the law of God, not nakedly forbidden as their labour on the Sabaoth is, but directly and immediately forbidden them, for it is clear that all the other commandments being indifferently imposed without either specification or exception of any person whatsoever, respect not any more one then another: & therefore hold all men under an equal obligation, and so was it altogether convenient, because they are no less the secret laws of nature, than the revealed laws of God. and no less written with the finger of God in the fleshly tables of the heart, then in the tables of stone, all of them forbidding those things that by their property and nature, or (as the Schoolmen say) ex suo genere, are evil; but the commandment that forbiddeth servile works on the Sabaoth is of a different sort, first because the servant is, touching the matter which it forbiddeth (labour) wholly subject to another man's command: secondly because the commandment forbiddeth not the servant to work but only forbiddeth the Master his servants work; thirdly because the thing itself namely servants labour, is not evil materially and ex suo genere, as the matters of the other negative commandments are: but only circumstantially, because it's done upon such a day: for idolatry, blasphemy, dishonouring of Parents, murder, adultery, theft, false testimony, coveting of that is other men's; which are the matter of other commandments are evil in their own nature; and therefore forbidden, because they are evil in their own nature: But to labour on the Sabaoth is not by nature evil, but therefore evil because it is forbidden. So that the native illness in the other, causeth the prohibition, but the prohibition in this causeth the evil, for labouring on the seaventh day; if God had not forbidden it had not been evil at all (no more than to labour on the sixth,) as not being interdicted by any law of nature, as the matters of all the other commandments are for although the secret instinct of nature teacheth all men, that sometime is to be withdrawn from their bodily labours, and to be dedicated to the honour of God (which even the profanest Gentiles, amidst all the blind superstition, and darkness, wherewith they were covered, in some sort did) appointing set times to be spent in sacrifice and devotion to their Idols, which they took for their Gods) yet to observe one day in the number of seven, as a certain day of that number, and namely the seaventh in the rank, or a whole day by the revolution of the Sun, and with that severe exactness of restraining all work (as was enjoined to the jews) is but merely ceremonial, brought in by positive law; and is not of the law of nature; For had that form of keeping Sabaoth, been a law of nature, than had it obliged the Gentiles as well as the jews, seeing they participate both equal in the same nature: yet it did not so, but was given to the Israelites, to be a special mark of their separation 
Exod. 31. 13. Ezech. 20. 12. 20.  from the Gentiles, and of their particular participation to God: neither shall we find either in the writings of Heathen men (whereof some were in their kind very religious) that any of them had ever any sense of it, or in the records of Moses, that it was ever observed by any of the holy patriarchs before it was pronounced in mount Sinai: But if it had been a law of nature herself, and so had obliged all the patriarchs; and as large as nature herself, and so obliged all the Gentiles: and had it not been as durable, as nature too, and so obliged us Christians also? Certainly it had; for if that precise vacation and sanctification of the Sabaoth day, had consisted by the law of nature, then must it have been by the decree of all Divines immutable, and consequently right grievous should the sin of Christians be, which now profane that day with ordinary labours, & chiefly theirs, which first translated the celebration of that day, being the seaventh, to the first day of the week; who yet are certainly supposed to be none other than the Apostles of our Saviour:  
To turn to the point and clearly to determine it; the Master only is accountable unto God, for the servants work done on the Sabaoth: but for what work? Namely for all the works of labour, but not for the works of sin: and how for the works of labour? Namely, if he do them not absolutely, of his own election, but respectively, as of obedience to his Master's command; for touching labours, servants are directly obliged to their Masters. But touching sins, themselves are obliged immediately to God. Therefore those they may do because their master commands them: these they may not do (although commanded) because God forbids them.  
The servants then may not in any case, sin at the commandment of any Master on earth: because he hath received immediately a direct commandment to the contrary, from his Master in heaven. For it is better to obey God then man. And there is no proportion betwixt the duties which they owe as servants to their Masters according to the flesh. And which they owe as Children to the father of spirits: or betwixt the obligation wherein they stand to men, who have power but over their bodies in limited cases, and that for a season. And that infinite obligation wherein they stand to him that is both creator & preserver, and redeemer, & judge of body and soul; sin therefore they may not, if their Masters command them, because God hath forbidden them (not only forbidden I say but forbidden it them) But labour they may if their Masters command them, because God hath no way forbidden them that; God hath indeed forbidden the Masters exacting that work on the Sabaoth; but he hath not forbidden the Servants execution of that work if it demanded or exacted: he hath restrained the Master from commanding it, but he hath not restrained the servants from obeying if it be commanded, for although I acknowledge the servants work on the Sabaoth to imply sin: yet I say it is not the servants fault. And albeit I confess the commandment of God be transgressed and God disobeyed by such works on the Sabaoth, yet it is not the servant that transgresseth the commandment, it is not he that disobeyeth God. For the question is not the passine sense, whether God be displeased with these works, but of the active who displeaseth him. The thing is confessed but the person is questioned. Confessed, that is, that there is sin committed in that work, but questioned whose sin it is. For work having relation both to the Master and to the servant: to the Masters commanding and to the servants executing; I affirm that the work is sinful only on the Master's part, not on the servants, namely as it is an effect of the Masters command not as an effect of the servant's obedience. And the case seems clear. The matter whereabout the servant's labour is, is the Masters. So is the command that sets him to it. So is the awe and fear that keeps him to it. So is the profit that redoundeth of it. And above all the commandments of God whereby that work of the servant is forbidden is given directly to the Master. And in the servant all is contrary. It is not his own work. It proceedeth not from his own will. His condition exacteth his obedience about labour, and above all God commands of ceasing from labour belongeth not to him, I mean not to him directly, as the person to whom it is given, but only as the subject or matter whereof it is given; for he is one of them indeed, whose works are forbidden, but not of them to whom it is forbidden, one of whom but not to whom the commandment was imposed. But where the law was not imposed, sin cannot be imputed seeing sin is nothing but the transgression of the law; it is not therefore the servants but the Master's sin.  
But there is another objection, for admit the servants 
Objection.  work upon the Sabaoth be the Master's sin, that imposeth it. Is it not sin to give consent and furtherance to another man's sin? But this servants do when they execute their Master's commandments, and consequently it is unlawful so to yield, lawful therefore it is to resist and reject such commandment. I answer first touching the point of consenting that in such a work is to be considered the 
Sol.  substance and the quality, that is the work itself & the sinfulness of it, servants may consent to it, as it is their master's work, not as it is their Master's sin, for except these things be distinguished, God himself can no more avoid the calumniation of being the author, then poor servants of being the ministers of sin; for that God concurreth with every man to every action whatsoever, as touching the substance of the action, is out of all question, seeing both all power whence actions issue are derived from him, and that no power can proceed into act without his present assistance and operation, but yet to the crime, the faultiness, the inordination, the unlawfulness of the action (wherein the nature of sin doth for malice consist) he concurreth not. But it wholly proceedeth from the infection of the concupiscence, wherewith the faculties of the soul are originally defiled, the actions themselves issuing from the powers, and the sinfulness of the actions from the sinfulness of the powers, like corrupt streams flowing from filthier springs. It is not therefore every concurrence of the servants with the Master to a sinful action which causeth the stain, and imputation of sin upon the servant: as when he consenteth and concurreth only to the action not to the sin: namely likes and approves it, as his master's work, yet utterly dislikes it, as it is his master's transgression, likes of the work for the obligation of obedience, wherein (touching work) he standeth to serve his Master, and yet dislikes of the sin, for the great obligation wherein every one standeth toward the honour of God. But yet (to answer secondly to the point of resisting) the servant ought not for any dislike or detestation 
Sol.  of the annexed sin, to resist or reject his Master's commandment touching the work: for in obeying he is at most but the minister of another man's sin (and that as they say per accidence, namely as it is annexed to such a work) but in resisting he is directly the author of his own sin, by withdrawing his obedience about bodily service from him that is his Lord according to the flesh: even that obedience wherein both by his own covenant and the law of nations he standeth bound unto him, and that without any exception of the Sabaoth more than other days. And is it wisdom in a servant to commit himself sin to prevent his Master's sin? That is to offend God himself lest another man should offend him; no not so, we must not do evil that good may come thereon (especially do evil ourselves that another's good may come of it) rather we must carry two eyes about us that while we look with one to the end (that is to the glory of God), we look with another to the means that they be lawful and agreeable to the will of God, and not dishonour him with our sinful actions, while we would honour him with our good intentions. But yet one scruple 
Object.  remaineth because every person that did any work on the Sabaoth day, was by the law to be cut off from his people, and to dye the death, every person therefore, the servant as well as the master. I answer 
Exo. 31, 14. 15.  that the judicial commandment is to be understood 
Sol.  of the same persons to whom the moral commandment was given; the commandment touching punishment of them, to whom the commandment the offence was imposed: but I proved before, that the moral commandment was not imposed to servants as servants, but to them that were at liberty. All they therefore that did any work on the Sabaoth were to die the death by the judicial law: they I say that did it: not they that were made to do it; which were as well passive as active in doing of it: namely they that did it of election, as free that might obstaine from work and would not, not they that did it of injunction and necessity, as servants that would abstain from work and might not; whose condition was such that they would not work by their master's direction, might be made to work by their master's compulsion, for a hard case it were if poor servants to whom no commandment to cease from work was given by God; and yet might be compelled to work by men, should dye for it, if they did so work. It is therefore to be understood of them that work willingly of themselves or (as authors) cause others to work (as masters do their servants) not of them who only (as ministers) and against their wills are set to work. And rather because the work of the servant (that I say which he doth by the commandment of his master to whom for matter of labour he is merely subordinate) even reason and equity will interpret the master's work. And certainly that God accounteth it so, the declaration of that precept in another place doth, make manifest. 
Exod. 23. 12.  Six days thou shalt do thy work, and the seaventh day thou shalt rest that thine Ox and thine Ass, and thy Son, and thy Maid, etc. may be refreshed, for is it not manifest that the servants work is accounted the Masters, seeing the rest from the Master's work is the refreshing of the servants, the Master therefore who by the moral law was commanded that his servants should not work on the Sabaoth was by the judicial to be punished with death, if the servant did work that day by his commandment.  
And thus have I proved my assertion, namely that the commandment of the Sabaoth was not given, nor fit to be given to the servants themselves but to their governors, both by arguments of reason which is the rule of men, and authority of Scriptures, which is the rule of Christians, and cannot find any thing material in either of both that may reprove it: but yet if I should admit (which I doubt you will never prove) that the commandment was directly given to servants themselves, as servants, and that they might lawfully disobey their Masters touching those works where by the precept of the Sabaoth might be transgressed: yet have I another exception against your doctrine; namely for condemning every light work (such as inviting of guests, or fetching of wine from a neighbour's house, or giving a horse provender) (for these are the very instances which bred the question) for transgression of God's commandments, forbidden on the Sabaoth: no; it is not; the commandment importeth no such thing for it is not [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that is every work, but [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that is there forbidden, that is every servile work, for such the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] properly doth import, and servile work, by the interpretation of the best divines is accounted, either that which is attended with the toil of the body, or at least intended and directed to lucre and gain of riches, with some care of the mind, such as men's ordinary work is wont to be on common days. And that the work there forbidden hath a special relation to the gain of riches is the better apparent because the same word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] signifieth (opes) as well as (opus) riches as well as work, and not only where the commandment was pronounced (in the 20 of Exodus) but wheresoever it is repeated in the books of the law●, which is oftentimes (and differently for other circumstances) the same word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is ever retained and never changed, not every work therefore absolutely, but every work of such a kind, namely consisting in toil and tending to gain is restrained by the commandment, and is there not evident reason to understand it so? For seeing the intendment of the precept is clearly (in the point of that day's vacation) that the body should be refreshed by abstinence from labour, And (in the point of sanctification of it) the mind should be refreshed by attendance to spiritual exercise: it followeth manifestly that if there be any works that resolve not the body and so hinder not the refreshing of it, nor dissolve and alienate the mind from the service of God, and meditation of Godliness, that these works are not forbidden because neither the vacation which the commandment importeth, nor that sanctification which it intendeth is impeached by them.  
And if you will object that even very light works are expressly forbidden in the law, so that to kindle fire on the sabaoth day was unlawful, I must answer 
Exod. 353.  you that that and some other were but ceremonial precepts not moral (and belonged to the curious observance of the commandment) and therefore obliged the jews and none else: for that such light and labourlesse works on the Sabaoth were no transgression at all of the moral commandment the practice of him whose every action was our instruction, of him who was the giver of the law as God, and the only keeper of it as man, will put all out of question, for had that exact and extreme vacation on the Sabaoth been required by God's moral commandment, and so every light work been a transgression of it, would not our Saviour have repooved the jews 
a Luke. 13. 15.  for losing their beasts from the staules, and leading them to water on the Sabaoth day? Yet he mentioneth, and reproves it not (and think Sr by the way, he that condemned not bringing of beasts to drink, would not condemn bringing meat to beasts) or would he have (not suffered only) but excused the 
b Luke. 6.  plucking of ears of corn, and rubbing out the grains on the Sabaoth day as he did in his disciples? or would he himself 
c joh. 9 6.  on the Sabaoth day have made clay, and anointed with it the eyes of the blind? or would he have commanded others to do such works on the Sabaoth, as he did the impotent man, whom he had healed, namely to 
d joh. 5. 8. 9  take up his bed that day and depart? See then how this severe preciseness of yours agreeth with the practice and doctrine of our Saviour: who not only suffered these light works to be done without reprehension, but excused them, but did them himself; but commanded others to do them: therefore in his judgement, who was the law giver, and must be the judge of all the sins of men; they were no transgression of the commandment of the Sabaoth.  
For vain it were to reply that Christ was Lord of the Sabaoth, and therefore might dispense with the commandment at his own pleasure: vain it were I say, for although he were Lord of the Sabaoth as God, being so the law giver, yet was he subject to the commandment, as man, being as the Apostle saith 
* Galat. 4. 4.  made under the law; for what else importeth that kind of speech (made under the law) but that he which by nature was not under the law, as being God, was yet made under the law as becoming man: which law first himself pronounced: he came ●o fulfil, and secondly his Apostles that he had fulfilled it in that he had no sin: but every transgression of the law was sin, therefore in no sort he transgreffed the law, and it not only were (not) vain in this manner to excuse our Saviour's actions, but a very hard & dangerous point, when question is made of our Saviour's fulfilling of the law, to fly in this case to the refuge of dispensations: as if our Saviour that came to satisfy for all our transgressions of the law, performed not the law himself, with such perfect & exact obedience as might answer the justice of God, and the strictresse of his commandments, but that something must be helped or supplied by dispensation. The truth is therefore that our Saviour's obedience, answered exactly, and perfectly satisfied the exigence of that, and all other commandments of Almighty God, performing all to the utmost that they required, and therefore those easy and slender works, were no breaches of the commandment touching the Saboth.  
But let that be admitted also; first that the commandment was immediately given to servants, Secondly that it was given touching the lightest degree of works. Let servants be the persons, and those works the matter to whom, and of which the commandment was given, is your doctrine yet justified hereby, and subject to no other reproof? The persons have afforded me exceptions against it because the commandment was not given to servants. And the matter because it was not imposed touching that light sort of works; the time also will, because it cannot be understood of the Lords day; for what day was it, of which the charge of vacation was so strictly given? Was it not the seaventh day of the week? The seaventh (saith the precept) is the Sabaoth of the Lord thy God; In it thou shalt do no work. And why the seaventh? Because in six days the Lord finished all the works of creation, and rested the seaventh day; therefore he sanctified the seaventh day, & what day is it whereof we question? The Lord's day? That's the first day of the week It is therefore the seaventh day of the week (the Sabaoth of the jews) not the first day of the week (the Sabaoth of Christians) that was so strictly by God's commandment destined to rest. Therefore the works done on the Sabaoth day are no transgressions of God's commandments. But 
Object.  you will say the old Sabaoth is abolished, and the celebration of it translated to the first day of the week. Translated, by whom? By any commandment of God? Where is it? The holy Scripture we know to 
Sol.  be sufficient; it containeth all the commandments of God, whether of things to be done, or to be avoided, or to be believed. Let me hear either one precept, one word of God out of the old Testament that it should be translated, or one precept, one word of the son of God, out of the new Testament, commanding it to be translated, I say one word of any of his Apostles intimating that by Christ's commandment it was translated. It is certain that there is none. Therefore it is evident that the solemnity of the Lords day was not established jure divino. Not by any commandment of God, and consequently that to work on that day, is certainly no breach of any divine commandment. How then hath the first day of the week gained the celebration and solemnity to become the Sabaoth of the Christians? By the constitution of the Church, and only by that, yet of that most ancient Church, I confess that next followed the ascension of our redeemer. But yet all this is but Ius humanum it is but the decree of men, which must not equal itself with God's commandment, and must be content with a less degree of authority and obligation than the commandment touching the Sabaoth, might challenge that was pronounced in the ears of men with the voice of God, and written in tables with the finger of God. What then do I doubt of the just abolishment of the jews Sabaoth; no in no sort; it is abolished and that justly I confess; yet not by any repeal of any contrary decree; but only by expiration, because it is grown out of date; It was established for a sign * 
Exod. 31. 13.  of difference betwixt the people of God and the profane nations, the jews and Gentiles: but this difference is ceased, the partition wall is broken down, jews and Gentiles in Christ are made all one: all are become the people of God, the Sabaoth was (saith the Apostle) a shadow * 
Ezech. 20. 12.  of things to come, whereof the body was in Christ, the body therefore being come, what should the shadow be expressed? For was it the shadow of Christ's 
Colos. ●. 17.  resting in the grave that day? That is past; or was it a shadow of rest and liberty from the slavery of sin in the kingdom of grace, that is obtained; or is it a shadow of the eternal rest of the blessed in the kingdom of Glory? That is sure to be obtained (Christ hath given his word, and we have received the pledge of his holy spirit) These things are shadowed in Sabaoth. And these things are already performed in Christ. The first is passed, the second is present, the third is assured. The Sabaoth therefore that was the shadow of these things, when the things themselves were come, vanished of itself. But might not the celebration of the Sabaoth, which thus ceased, be justly translated by the Church to the first day of the week? Yes certainly both might and was justly. For I consider that the generality, was of the moral law, of the law of nature, namely that men should sequester sometime from worldly affairs, which they might dedicate to the honour of God, only the speciality, that is the limitation and designment of that time, was the church's ordinance appointing first one certain day, & that in relation of Christian assemblies, namely that they might meet and pray, and praise God together with one voice in the congregation. And secondly defigning that one day to the first day of the week, for some special reasons and remembrances. For first it was the day of Christ's resurrection from the dead. Secondly it was the day of the holy Ghosts descension from Heaven to pour infinite graces upon Christians. The first of them for our justification as the Apostle speaketh. The second for the sanctification, and edification of the whole Church (to omit some other reasons of less importance) justly therefore was the consecration of the Sabaoth translated to that day. But what of that? What if the consecration of the Sabaoth was by the Church translated to the first day of the week? Was therefore the commandment of God translated also? That that day ought to be observed under the same obligation with the Sabaoth? For if the commandment of God were not translated by the Church, together with the celebration from the seaventh day to the first day, then is working on the first day no violation of God's commandment; was the commandment of God then translated from the Sabaoth to the Lords day by the decree of the Church? No: the Church did it not, let me see the act. The Church could not do it, let me see the authority: the Church could not translate the commandment to the first day, which God himself had namely limited to the seaventh. For could the Church make that God's commandment which was not his commandment? God's commandment was to rest on the seaventh day and work on the first; therefore to rest on the first and work on the seaventh was not his commandment: For doth the same commandment of God enjoin both labour and rest on the same day? Is there fast and loose in the same commandment with God? Thou shalt work on the first day saith that, and work on the seaventh saith this. Can the Church make these the same commandment? But say the Church hath this incredible & unconceivable power: Say it may forbid to work on the first day, by the virtue of the very same precept. That doth neither expressly command or licence to work on that day. Say that the Church of God may translate the commandment of God from one day to another at their pleasure, did they it therefore? I spoke before of their authority whether they might do it. I inquire now of the act, whether they did it; did the Church (I say) ever constitute, that the same obligation of God's commandment which lay on the jews, for keeping of the Sabaoth day should be translated and laid upon the Christians for keeping of the Lords day? Did the Church this, no no, they did it not; all the wit & learning in the World will not prove it.  
But you may object, if the old Sabaoth vanished 
Object.  and the commandment of God was limited & fixed to that day only, then is one of God's commandments perished. I answer that the generality of that commandment to keep a Sabaoth wherein God 
Sol.  might be honoured, was moral; But the speciality of it, namely to keep, (1) one day of seven, (2) the seaventh, (3) one whole day, (4) with precise vacancy from all work, were merely ceremonial; the specialties then of the commandments are vanished: But for the generality of it, it is a law of nature, and remaineth. But, as the speciality of that commandment implieth plain contradiction, with the sabaaticall of the Lords day, so the generality of it can enforce nothing for it, for these are miserable consequents, (indeed plain fallacies of the consequent) that God hath sometime commanded vacancy, for his honour, therefore he hath commanded the first day of the week to be that time, or this, God hath commanded us some time to rest, therefore that time we must precisely abstain from all manner of works: can the Church make these good consequences? If it cannot, the celebration of the Lords day, can with no enforcement of reason be deduced out of the morality of God's commandment. But if you will reply: that the Church hath established the first day of the week to be the Christians sabaoth not by way of consequence, as deducing it out of commandment but merely by authority, appropriating and fixing Gods moral commandment to it; you may say your pleasure, but I shall neither believe, nor you prove that such authority belongs to the Church: or that such an act hath been established by the Church: which I am sure you can never do neither of both, for seeing that all divines acknowledge that the singling out of such a day to be sanctified, namely the seaventh rather then any other was merely ceremonial, although it was Gods own designation. I hope that you will confess the special designment of the first day of the week to that honour, before other days, being made only by the Church, to be also but ceremonial. But certain it is that no ceremonies, which come not under the obligation of God's moral law, should oblige to the observation of ceremonies. Therefore it will never consist with reason, that the moral law of God can by any authority of the Church oblige Christians to the celebration of the Lords day.  
It is not therefore the translation of the old commandment of God from the one day to the other (which yet if it were translated) can oblige servants no otherwise than it did under the old law) but the institution of a new commandment, of the Church herself (yet guided by the spirit of God) that consecrated that day to the solemn service of God; what then doth not the constitution of the Church, for the celebration of the Lords day, bind equally the consciences of men as the old commandment did, for the celebration of the Sabaoth? Bind it doth, but not equally: for the Church is no way equal unto God; the authority of it is less than the authority of God, therefore is the obligation of the Church's ordinance, less than the obligation of God's ordinance. But yet bind the conscience it doth, and that firmly and effectually, (even the conscience of every member of the Church) to true and exact obedience. For he * 
Mat. 18, 17.  that heareth not the Church is no better than an heathen or a publican. And never was Church on earth more undefiled than that that ordained that institution. He that despiseth the Apostles of Christ despiseth Christ himself, and the Apostles were governor's of that Church: for acknowledged it is that the celebration of the Lords day, was the ordinance of that Church and of those governors. Therefore it is sure that that ordinance doth oblige the conscience of every Christian man; but if you ask me how far doth that constitution of the Church oblige the conscience? I answer you as far as it doth command, (you will desire no more) further it cannot: It cannot oblige further, than it doth ordain; it cannot bind the conscience for guiltiness, further than it doth for obedience; because all guiltiness doth presuppose disobedience; now that the Church ordained solemn assemblies of Christians, to be celebrated that day to the honour of God, and in them the invocation of God's holy name, thanksgiving, hearing of the holy Scriptures and receiving of the Sacraments, is not denied; It is out of question, all antiquity affordeth plentiful remembrance of it. But that it enjoineth that severe & exact vacation, from all works on the Lord's day, which the commandment of God required in the jews Sabaoth, you will never prove. It relisheth too much of the jewish ceremonies, to be proved by Christian divinity. For this is no proof of it, that the Lords day is succeeded in place of the Sabaoth. Or as some divines term it, as the heir of the Sabaoth. It is I say no proof at all, (except it were established by the same authority, and the observance of it, charged with the same strictness of commandment) for if it succeed the sabaoth in place, must it therefore succeed in equal preciseness of observation? (So if the Pope succeedeth Peter in place, must he therefore succeed him in equality of power?) the Lord's day therefore succeedeth the Sabaoth in the point of sanctification, for celebration of the assemblies, for the Church hath precisely commanded that, but not in the point of exact and extreme vacation, from every kind of work, for that the Church hath not commanded: and so although the Lords day may well be termed the heir of the Sabaoth, yet is it not ex asse haeres as the civil lawyers speak. It inheriteth not the whole right of the Sabaoth, for that right and prerogative of the Saoth was not given to the Sabaoth and its heirs; it it was no fee simple (and if I may speak in the lawyer's style) it was only a tenure for term of life: namely during the life of the ceremonial law, which life ended in the death of our Saviour. This reason therefore of the succession of the Lords day in place of the Sabaoth is no reason. Any other reason besides this or else authority which I might in your behalf object to myself, I know none worthy mentioning: for the commandment of God as I have proved is not of this day. The commandment of the Church is of this day, but not of these works, neither will all the histories of the ancient Church, nor cannons of the ancient counsels, nor any other monuments or registers of antiquity afford you (as I am certainly persuaded search them as curiously as you can) record of any such constitution of the Church for the general restraint of works on the Lord's day; you may find I know in some of the ancient Fathers much sounding the prerogative of that day: as that it was a holy day in 
* Hist. Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 22.  Eusebius: a day of Christian assemblies in 
* Apolog. 2.  justin Martyr; and a day of rejoicing in 
* Apologe. cap. 16.  Tertullian: a festival day in 
* Epi. ad mag.  Ignatius; and some more of the like, but doth any of all these import or imply a general restraint? a desistance from all work? No, they do not; neither shall you find in these, nor in any other records of antiquity any constitutions of the Apostles; and of the first Church extant to have effect; no nor any relation or remembrance that such a constitution had ever been made by them nay I find clear evidence to the contrary, for would Constantine the Great (that most holy Emperor and the best nursing Father of Christian religion that ever Prince was) would he I say have licenced by his decree, the country people freely (libere liciteque are the words of the constitution) to attend their sowing of grain, setting of vines, and other husbandry on the Lord's day, if those works had been forbidden by the commandment of God, or decree of the Apostles, and first Church? Or would the Fathers in the council of Laodicea (one of the most ancient & approved counsels of the Church) enjoin the vacancy of the Lords day with this condition; And if men can? Certainly servants full ill can if they be constrained by their Masters to work: would they I say have added such a condition, had it been simply unlawful, for all sorts of people by the ancient sanctification of the first Church to do any work that day? It appeareth therefore that there were no such universal constitutions of the Church. The actual forbearing of all works by some Christians that day I stand not on: nor on the exhortations of some ancient Fathers to that purpose, some remembrances of both are to be found I know, but these are particular examples, and persuasions; constitutions of the Church they are not, edicts of sundry Princes likewise, and decrees of some provincial counsels are extant I confess in record to the same effect, and those are constitutions indeed but partly, not of the Church, partly not universal, nor very ancient, and therefore are no sanctions to oblige the whole Church, which beside the law of God and decrees of the Apostles (to whom the government of the whole Church by our Saviour was committed) and the canons of the universal Synods no positive constitution can do. What then? Would I set at liberty that every man may freely profane the Lord's day with extraordinary labour? No, I would not, I confess it is meet Christians should abandon all worldly affairs that day and dedicate it wholly to the honour of God, that Christians should not be less devout & religious in celebrating of the Lords day, than the jews were in celebrating of there Sabaoth, for the obligation of our thankfulness to God is more than theirs, although the obligation of his commandment to us in that behalf is less; Meet it is I say. And wish with all my heart it were most religiously performed even with all abstinence from worldly affairs, and all attendance to Godly devotion. But yet notwithstanding I deny that together with the institution of the Lords day there was any such constitution of theChurch established whereby men were obliged to the strict desisting from all work. But what doth the honour of God then stand at the courtesy of man to profane that day (if they list) with work at their pleasure? Not so, for beside the constitutions of some ancient counsels both the edicts of christian Princes have every where restrained that profanation: neither of which (for matters that fall under their power) can be transgressed without sin and disobedience to God, whose commandments although not directly yet reductively) those constitutions are: for God hath commanded all men to honour their Parents (the parents of their country) stand in the first rank. The son of God hath commanded all Christians to hear the Church, and that under forfeiture of communion of Saints, but they that despise the Canons of the Church, or edicts of the Prince, hear not the one, honour not the other, therefore they that transgress either of these constitutions, transgress also Consequently I say though not immediately the commandments of God, but yet neither of them both (to come near home) are transgressed by servants if they work by their Master's commission, and not of their own election, for neither doth the one law or the other give liberty and warrant to Servants to be rebellious to their Masters touching point of service, that day more than others. But in forbidding of work, first they intent not your precise abstinence from any light and labourlesse work as both the censure of the Church, and judgement of temporal Magistrates make manifest, which never took hold on any man for such manner of works. And secondly they purpose to forbid the Masters commanding or allowing of work and not the servants obeying if he be commanded; for the law is intended and taketh hold of them that have the liberty and power to keep it, not of them that have not, but are merely under the power and disposition of another man, wherefore if Servants work on the Lord's day of their own choice, it is their own sin, but if their Master's command, it is their master's sin. And he standeth bound to answer the law, no warrant therefore, nor encouragement have servants by any of these laws, to reject their commandments touching matter of work or service on the Sabaoth or any other day.  
And is not this more agreeable to the doctrine of the holy Apostles of our Saviour, every where delivered touching servants? Do they not often, and with exceeding earnestness command and exhort them to obedience, no where permitting them any point of liberty, and that without exception of Master, of labour, or of time? for (that we may take a very short view of their doctrine touching servants obedience) what masters are they to whom servants ought to be obedient? Infidels and believers saith Paul 〈◊〉. Tim. 6. 1. 2. Covetous and froward saith Peter 1. Pet. 2. 18. that is, even to all, obedient to all. How? In what sort? From the heart saith the Apostle, Collos. 3. 23. in singleness of heart as unto Christ in another place: Ephes. 6. 5. without any replying, not so much as answering again. In a third Titus. 3. 9 That is in all readiness and humility, obedient to all in such sort: how far? In what points? Even in all things: servants be obedient to your Masters in all things. Colos. 3. 22. please them in all things, Titus. 2, 9 think them worthy of all honour. 1. Tim. 6. 1. In all things? Yea in all things belonging to the condition of Servants; that is in all service, in all labour which is the proper character of all servants, and (obedient to them in all things) why? That the name of God and his doctrine be not evil spoken of, 1. Tim. 6. 1. which two last points of the Apostles doctrine touching servants obedience I would advise you Sr specially to consider, for whereas it is out of question, that infidels exacted works of their Christian servants (as in the beginning of the Church many believing servants had unbelieving masters) on the Lord's day no less than others; if their yielding to that exacting of their Masters had been sin; would he have commanded them to obey their Masters in all things? And to please them in all things without excepting of any day or of any labour? For that heathen Masters would exact of Christian servants their ordinary labour and service on the Lord's day as well as on others you have no reason to doubt, except you think that heathen men would tender and respect more the religion of their Servants (that religion which themselves esteemed to be superstition & folly) than their own profit. And then if Christian servants should have withdrawn their obedience that day rejecting and resisting their Master's commandments, whereas their unbelieving servants willingly obeyed them, and laboured for their profit, had they not caused the name of God which they worshipped to be blasphemed and the doctrine which they professed to be evil spoken of? (which was the point of the Apostles doctrine I especially remembered you of) That God I say which commanded and that doctrine which instructed servants to disobey their Masters, & by depriving them of their service caused their hindrance? The Apostle knew full well this was not the way to propagate the Gospel, and enlarge the kingdom of Christ, he knew it was Christian meekness & obedience, & humility, & patience that must do it: & therefore he commandeth Christian servants to give their Masters all honour, to obey them in all things, & to please them in all things that so their Masters seeing them more serviceable & profitable servants, & withal more virtuous than others were, might sooner be drawn to like of the religion that made them such, whereas the contrary would have been manifestly a scandal, and grievous impeachment to the propagation of the gospel, & defamed it, for a doctrine of contumacy and disobedience, and for a seminary (as it were) of disturbance and sedition of families and commonwealths. And not only alienated the affections of Masters from their Christian servants: but inflamed all men with indignation & hatred against the Christian religion and the professors of it. Such therefore evidently is the importance and intendment of the Apostles doctrine (as unpartial men whom prejudice or selfe-conceipt leads not away, may soon discern) very far differing from this doctrine of yours. Touching which point of the Apostles instruction given to servants for this effectual and general obedience, you will not reply (I hope) as some have done; that at first indeed it was permitted for the good of the Church lest the increase of it, and proceeding of the Gospel should be hindered by offence given to the Gentiles. For would that have been permitted if it had been unlawful? Or could the Church of God be increased by the sins of men? His Church increased by that whereby himself was dishonoured? Or would the Apostles have permitted men to sin (as now jesuits do) for the good of the Church (nay exhorted and commanded to it) who had himself expressly taught that we must not do evil that good may come of it. No neither of both can be, because either of both were a stain, and derogation to the righteousness of God: the intention therefore of the Apostles was simple, without all tricks of policy to teach servants all exact and entire obedience to their Masters, touching all works that belong to the duty of servants, namely that were in themselves honest and lawful without excepting of any day. Neither shall you find (as I am verily persuaded and I speak not at random) if all the monuments of antiquity be searched through either the practice of Christian servants, or the doctrine of Christian preachers to have been any other, I say you shall not find any remembrance in the ancient Church (if you search the books of histories) that it was the custom of Christian servants to withdraw their obedience from their Masters on the Lord's day, no (if you search the books of doctrine) that every any Father or teacher of the Church so persuaded or instructed them: no, nor yet if you add to them the Heathen writers also, that lived in the age of the ancient Church, and whereof divers were sharp and bitter enemies to the Christian religion, and apt to take every advantage to calumniate and disgrace it (such as Lucian, Porphyry, julian, Libanius; Eunapius and others were) you shall never find the detraction of servants obedience, objected to Christians; And certainly if in all antiquity, no history be found to record it, no father to persuade it, no enemy toobiect it, it may well seem evident that this doctrine of servant's withdrawing obedience from their masters, for work on the Lord's day was neither taught nor practised in the ancient Church.  
And therefore Sr to draw to an end (for I grow weary, & have already both dulled my pen and myself) I would advise you in the name of jesus Christ, whose Minister you are & whose work you have in hand, to examine this doctrine of yours, what foundation it may have in the word of God & what effect in the Church of God; lest the foundation happily be your own fantasy not Gods word & the effect prove the poisoning not the nourishing of the church. I know Sir you are not the first that set this doctrine abroach, nor the only man that draws of the vessel, although few draw so freely as you. But I would advise you sir in the name of God to beware betimes & draw not too deep. It is all nought, it relisheth already with them that have good tastes, like the water of Marah. It will prove like that of Meribah a little lower & if you hap to draw to the bottom you will find the dreggs to be nothing but disturbance and sedition both in Church and Commonwealth. But I say in the beginning, I would neither censure nor divine of the evil consequence of this Doctrine: let them censure (if they will) to to whom the government of the Church and Commonwealth, and provision of peace in both doth belong. And to divine (me thinks) there is little need; the events are too evident even to mean foresights already to require divination: for who (when he seeth that seed sown) doubts what grain will be reaped in heaviness? I will therefore neither censure nor divine of the fruits of your doctrine, but omit both and make an end. If the reasons which I have produced against your opinion satisfy not you, you may do well to satisfy them. And to establish your doctrine with better. It is the part of Christ's minister, to give a reason of his doctrine when it is called in question, and accused of novelty and of sinful consequence, as I accuse yours: and if you take me to be in an error and be able to reform it, it is your duty to do it. If your brother's beast went a stray, you were to reduce it homeby Moses law. Christ's law will less suffer you, to see your brother go astray and not restore him. Wherefore if you be assured that your doctrine is truly Christian and be able to justify it; you are bound to do it.  
The faith you owe to Christ, whose minister you are, the charity you owe to Christians, whose pastor or doctor you are, exact it of you, and I especially challenge it, that have felt myself specially grieved, and (as I think) wronged by occasion of it, I look therefore you should both answer my arguments, if they persuade you not, and produce better to persuade me; but first in your answers, I must entreat you to deal with me (as I would with you) honestly and ingeniously, and without either perverting or shifting of any arguments; to answer directly to the force of them. And secondly in your reasons to let me have as few words as you will, but direct and material arguments; For if they be light and have but small force, they will not move me. If sophistical & have but seeming force, I shall espy the deceit, I think and be able to discern betwixt a vizard and a visage; both the one sort and the other of such arguments will but prejudice your cause with me, & were better kept for some other disciple; but if you find yourself not able to establish and justify this doctrine wherewith I take my poor kinsman to have been corrupted, than I challenge you as you will answer it at the judgement seat of almighty God when your accounting day shall come, to repair the ruin you have made in his conscience, and (removing his scandal which hindereth him in his vocation) to establish him in his former obedience to his Master. So fare you well; and the spirit of truth be with you.  
May 16. 1611. At Gresham house in London.