THE DOCTRINE OF THE SABBATH VINDICATED, In a confutation of a treatise of the Sabbath, written by M. Edward Breerwood against M. Nic. Byfield, wherein these five things are maintained:  
First, that the fourth Commandment is given to the servant and not to the master only.  
Secondly, that the fourth Commandment is moral.  
Thirdly, that our own light works as well as gainful and toilsome are forbidden on the Sabbath.  
Fourthly, that the Lords day is of divine Institution.  
Fifthly, that the Sabbath was instituted from the beginning.  
By the industry of an unworthy labourer in God's Vineyard, RICHARD BYFIELD, Pastor in Long Ditton in Surrey.  Verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one title, shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled. Matth. 5. 18. 
LONDON, Imprinted by Felix Kyngston for Philemon Stephens and Christopher Meredith at the golden Lion in Paul's Churchyard. 1631.   

To all that love the LORD JESUS in sincerity.  
Dear Christian, bought with a price, most happy in this that thou art not thine own; for thy sake I have undertaken to answer this Treatise; to thee, do I Dedicate it, who mayest of right challenge all that I am or can. Thou, whether noble, wise, mighty, learned, unlearned, weak or mean, near or fare off, art interessed in all that maketh for the Truth, and in all that is done against it. Paul, Apollo, Cephas are thine, 
1. Cor. 3.  all thine; for thou art Christ's, and Christ is Gods. In the broaching of Heresies, thou art wounded, in the making of schisms thou art racked, in every lie thou art laid at; nothing cometh against a painful Minister, but reacheth to thy heart through his sides; nothing from a laborious Minister, but aimeth at thy settling, stablishing, comforting, perfecting, Wert thou the meanest that ever lived, who can think this too much for thee, seeing God withholds not himself as a Father, his Son as a Redeemer and Brother, his Spirit as sanctifier, Comforter, and the Spirit of Sonship in thy heart, and thy very body also, he owns as his Temple? For a recompense be enlarged: give thyself to God, receive nothing against, but all that is for the Truth: Let the reproaches wherewith Christ and his Ministers, are reproached fall on thee; own the Ministers gifts and labours, as thine, reign, but not without them, be honourable, but not when they are despised.  
When I first received this book entitled, A learned Treatise of the Sabbaoth, a little before November last, though I was utterly ignorant of any such controversy to have passed between my Brother, and Master Edward Breerwood; and had not yet cast mine eye on the base language of the reply in the end of that Treatise; yet the very novelty and dangerous vileness of the Doctrine, without any reference to things personal, struck me. My spirit was stirred in me, when I saw the whole right of the Law for the time of God's worship alleviated; the consequence whereof must needs be this, the whole kingdom wholly given to Atheism and profaneness. The zeal of God's glory and thy good began to eat upon me: I throw myself into the open field, that thou mayest be nourished; I resolved what I was, or am, or may be; should be (Christ strengthening me) Gods and thine; that God the Lord of Heaven might have his Royalty untouched, man his duty laid out; Superiors directed to stand for God and Men, in the things of God, and Inferiors be Gods, while men's; and men's, in and for God.  
Now knowing that there are none but are flesh, as well as spirit, and that the unregenerate part will catch at the most excellent truths, to suck thereout advantage to itself, by tearing a sunder things inseparably united, and taking to things hand over head in a wrong application, fearing thy miscarriage, I could not but advertise thee a little, in that part that concerns thy duty.  
The superior or master may conceit his power entrenched upon, the inferior or servant may suppose some unwarranted liberty granted him, all may think of an overrigid construction of the unchangeable precept. This D●spute yields none of those, neither prejudice to the master, nor occasion of liberty to the servant, nor other than a received and allowed sense, to the never-failing law, as will appear to him that thoroughly peruseth it. But for prevention of overhasty conceits in all, behold thy way-markes, before thou read or receive any thought to forestall thee, take what I set here before thee, which hath been seen, and heard, and allowed and received, Blessed be God's holy Name, and I doubt not but shall be, maugre the malice of contradicting spirits. For I admonish thee of no other things then what are already received, in the printed Books of Mr. Nich. Byfield. Consider, I say, what that Master of Assemblies hath left, in his writings as stakes to bond out the way of both master and servant, superior and inferior, in running the race of this fourth commandment, and as goads to quicken thy heart in the embracing of that divine Law.  
For the Doctrine of the Sabbath he thus explaineth himself in two places,  
First, God hath provided by his unchangeable law that one day in seven, servants shall rest from their labour. M. Byf. on 1 Pet. 2. 18. pag. 723.  
Secondly, Servants must show their fear of God in their callings, by carefulness to do God's service, as well as their masters, not only by spending the Sabbath in the duties of religion, but in redeeming the time in the week days (as may be without hindrance of their work or offence to their masters) to employ themselves in prayer, reading, conference, etc. And the reason is, because as servants must do their master's work, as they are servants: so they stand bound in the common obligation, to do God's service, as they are men; and no man but is subject to the law of God; who hath given all his commandments to servants as well as to masters. Byf. in 1 Pet. 2. 18. pag. 734.  
For the servant he layeth down these godly and savoury limitations, as Caveats:  
First, the subjection of servants is of Divine institution, to which God hath bound them by the fift Commandment, and so is a moral and perpetual ordinance, in 1 Pet. 2. 18. p. 721.  
Secondly, no faults in Superiors, can free inferiors from their subjection, in matter or manner, in 1 Pet. 2. p. 742.  
Thirdly, if the matter be only inexpedient and unmeete, thou must obey, in Col. 3. 23. p. 130.  
Fourthly, thou must be sure that it be sin that thou refusest, if thou must needs doubt, it is better to doubt and obey, than doubt and disobey, Id. ibid.  
Fiftly, thou must in unlawful things yield to obey by sufferings, Id. ibid.  
Sixtly, the servant must avoid inquisitive, the servant knoweth not what his master doth, joh. 15. 15. in 1 Pet. 2. p. 735.  
For the master he giveth these heavenly admonitions▪  
First, the master must give account of all he doth to God, though he be not bound to do so to inferiors, in 1 Pet. 2. p. 737.  
Secondly, good masters not only licence, but teach their servants to keep God's Sabbath, and worship him. Commandment 4. Gen. 18. 19 in 1 Pet. 2. p. 736.  
Thirdly, masters do not only wickedly in restraining their servants from the means of their salvation or comfort, but do foolishly also, in hindering them of that means that should make them good servants, in 1 Pet. 2. p. 725.  
Fourthly, they may not make their servants break God's Sabbath, to satisfy their wills, in Col. 3. 23. p. 130.  
In these Aphorisms, that faithful servant of jesus Christ being dead, yet speaketh; unto which let me add a word or two, that thou mightest on all hands be leftready to duty in this behalf; Remember (if thou be a servant) that in works of holiness, mercy and necessity, the master's power is to be obeyed in subjection to his commands; for in those is he under God, for God, and over thee. Then it is thy praise to follow 
Isa. 41. 2.  him in the lawful use of his power, at his foot.  
Lastly, the well-ordered household of that worthily praised Centurion, should be the platform for families that intent their wellbeing, When he bade his servant go, he went; and come, he came; and do this, and he did it: if thou be a master, and hadst such servants, wouldst thou, couldst thou serve 
jer. 43. 9  thyself of them? I am persuaded there is not the most covetous and profane Atheist, but he hath so much sense of a deity, and so much conscience yielding and heart giving, and relenting, that he would sometimes in a mood, proclaim to his household the Lords liberty. Is it so indeed? my prayer shall be for thee, that of this deed thou mayest never repent and pollute God's Name, with those wretched Israelites, lest it should hasten desolation on thy house and name; thy repentance may be fare better bestowed, upon the remainder of other sins, against other the Holy Laws of God. To which work I leave thee and all others that know, that Repentance towards God, and Faith towards the Lord jesus is that which summeth up Christianity among those that follow the Truth in Love; the Lord answer us all with strength in our souls, that always we may labour fervently one for another in prayers, that we may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God.  
So prayeth Yours in the Lord, RICHARD BYFIELD.   

THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOK.  

THE PREFACE. THE Preface of this Confutation showeth  
The illiterateness and vanity of the Title, pag. 1, 2, 3.  
The abusive application of holy Texts to such a Treatise, p. 4.  
The state of the Question opposed by Mr. Breerewood, pag. 5.   

CHAP. I. The first Chapter delivers  
The plain sense of the words of the fourth Commandment, which concern the persons to whom it is given, page 6.  
Seven reasons from the Commandment itself to avouch that exposition, page 7. 8.  
Two texts in the old Testament to confirm it, viz. jer. 17. 20. Exod. 34. 21. page 9  
The Infirmenesse of Mr. Breerwoods' Collection, page 9, 10.  
An argument taken out of Gal. 5. 3. to prove our exposition, pag. 10.  
A gross absurdity and wicked, against the souls of inferiors, arising from the contrary doctrine of our adversary, page 10.  
The singularity and Novelty of this opinion, page 10.   

CHAP. II. Containeth  
Two things that make Precepts parallel, and equally obliging, page 11, 12.  
A distinction to clear this, page 12.  
Another argument to prove that the fourth Commandment is given to servants, taken out of the Rom. 3. 19  
Many arguments to prove that the stranger-Moabite eating the Passeover, sinned though he were invited, page 13, 14.  
Instances proving that a commandment in form of words given of and not to one, may yet be sinned against by him of whom it is so given, page 13, 14.  
A retortion of M. Breerwoods' argument, page 14, 15.   

CHAP. III. Sheweth  
The weakness of that instance of the Precept of a Prince, applied to confirm his exposition, page 15.  
The greatness of the Servant's sin, that neglects attendance on Christ upon the Sabbath, under the similitude of a Prince, gathered out of Aquinas, page 16.  
How commandments that are privileges, bind the privileged; and therefore if the commandment were of servants and not to them, yet it obligeth them, page 16, 17.  
A further proof that the fourth Commandment is given to Servants also, page 17, 18.   

CHAP. FOUR  
Prooveth that the fourth Commandment is given to Children, out of Leu. 23. 3. and 19 3. and therefore to Servants, page 19, 20.   

CHAP. V Sheweth  
Our Adversary's unsound Reasoning from the Text, in Deut. 5. page 22, 23.  
The meaning of that text, page 23.  
Many passages in his unfolding the place, in Deut. 5. liable to just exceptions, page 24, 25, 26, 27.   

CHAP. VI Delivereth  
The difference between the Ox's and the Servant's subjection to the fourth Commandment, page 28.  
Two arguments drawn▪ thence, to prove that the Commandment obligeth Servants, page 28, 29.  
Further proofs hereof, page 29, 30.  
A Rule to know when Precepts that are alike for form of words, yet do not oblige alike, page 30.   

CHAP. VII. Sheweth  
That the Servant working on the Sabbath at his Master's commandment, sinneth, though the wrought Ox sinne not, p. 31, 32.  
The horridness of that position, that the Servant and the Ox or  
Ass, are alike subject to their Masters, page 32, 33.  
Three Rules that guide Subjects in obedience to their Superiors, page 33, 34.   

CHAP. VIII. Delivereth  
the examination of our Adversary's explication of that distinction of the matter and form of sin, page 35, 36.  
The Infirmenesse of his Reasoning from thence, page 36.   

CHAP. IX. Sheweth further  
What clause of the Commandment bindeth servants as servants, page 37, 38.  
Another argument drawn from the Texts, Exod. 20. 1, 20, 21. and 35. 1, 2. page 38.  
The exposition of the Commandment by Thomas Aquinas, page 38, 39, 40.   

CHAP. X. Sheweth  
the weakness of the adversary's reason, taken from the wisdom and equity of God, page 41, 42.  
divers unsound passages let fall in laying down that Reason, pag. 42.  
In special, the falsehood of this; that the Servants are void of power and liberty to obey God's Commandment on the Sabbath, if their Master bid them work, page 42, 43.   

CHAP. XI. Cleareth our Doctrine from  aspersions, and proveth that it occasioneth  
No Disobedience to Masters, page 44, 45.  
No hard usage to the Servant, page 45, 46.  
No breach of the Law of Nations, where many things about the Law of Nations, page 46, 47.  
Chargeth our Adversary's Doctrine to produce these three evils, page 47, 48.  
Confirmeth further our Doctrine, page 48, 49.   

CHAP. XII. Sheweth  
How our Adversary's Reason from God's goodness is faulty for form and matter, page 50, 51, 52, 53.  
That his Doctrine casteth into mischiefs and Inconveniences, page 54.   

CHAP. XIII. Sheweth  
the abuse of that place in Neh. 13. which is unfolded, and maketh for us; A justification of our English translation, and the signification of the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 page 56, 57, 58.   

CHAP. XIIII. Sheweth  
What work for kind is forbidden on the Sabbath, and how the Adversary's argument makes against him, page 59, 60.  
The text in Esa. 58. 13. vindicated from his false gloss, and unfolded, page 60, 61, 62.  
divers things about the form and residence of sin, page 62, 63.  
How fare this is true, that the Minister of another's exorbitant will sinneth not, page 64.  
The vanity of that distinction, that the Servants work done in obedience to his Master, is his naturally, not Morally, pag. 64, 65.   

CHAP. XV. Sheweth  
How sin is attributed to the members, and that properly the man sinneth, page 66, 67.  
The faultiness of our Adversaries, Reasoning about a Natural and Voluntary Instrument of sin, page 67, 68  
What takes▪ voluntariness from a deed, and the danger of that speech, work on the Sabbath hath sin annexed to it, page 68   

CHAP. XVI. Prooveth these particulars,  
The Servants working on the Sabbath, impeacheth his serving of God, page 72, 73.  
The Distinction of forbidding Nakedly and Immediately, is vain, and freeth not him that doth the thing forbidden, from sin, page 73, 74.  
The specification of the Servant in the Commandment, makes his working never the less his sin, but the more: and the venom of that word, Exception, page 74, 75.  
The Governor is charged more than the governed, in respect of a Political observance of the Commandment, not of a personal, page 75.  
The fourth Commandment is a Law of Nature, by Reasons, Authorities, and the Adversaries own words, page 75, 76, 77.  
To work on the Sabbath is evil materially, page 78, 79.  
The danger of that Position, that prohibitions in the Commandments are caused by the Native illness of that which is prohibited, page 79.  
The footsteps of every speciality in the fourth Commandment, found among the Gentiles, page 80, 81, 82, 83, 84.  
Gomarus' exceptions against this, answered, page 84, to 87.  
Our Adversary's reasons answered, with a proof that the fourth  
Commandment was kept by the Patriarches, before the Law given in Sinai, page 87, to 90.   

CHAP. XVII.  
Prooveth that the Servant in such work sinneth, as consenter to his Master's sin, where, the ways of partaking with other men's sins, are laid down, page 92, 93, 94.  
Decideth a great Case, viz. what works Servants may do on the Sabbath, page 94, 95.  
With Cautions both to Master and Servant, page 96.   

CHAP. XVIII. Sheweth  
that the Servant in this case may break the Moral Law, and yet not fall under the judicial Law, page 98.  
Some fearful examples of God's justice on Inferiors, working that day at the command of Superiors, page 98, to 102.   

CHAP. XIX. Prooveth  
that light works, that are our own, are forbidden on the Sabbath, by four arguments, page 104, 105.  
A large explication of the meaning of the Hebrew word Melachah, page 105, 106.  
Authorities to prove this Doctrine, page 107, 108.   

CHAP. XX.  
Our Adversary's senseless Answer to that place, Exod. 35. 3. with the true meaning thereof, page 109, 110.  
The clearing of the Instances of our Saviour, in commanding some works to be done on the Sabbath, page 111.  
That that which some Divines term Christian liberty on the Sabbath, is no other than Christian duty to the eternal Law, and was the jews freedom also, page 111, to 114.   

CHAP. XXI. Sheweth  
that to work on the Lord's day, is a breach of the fourth Commandment, pag. 116. 117.  
Where to find the Lords Sabbath, pag. 117. 118.  
Authorities to prove this, page 118. 119.  
That the Lord Christ translated the day, and that it is of divine authority, and of the Lords own institution, pag. 120. to 127.   

CHAP. XXII.  
Sheweth the weakness of our Adversary's position, that the Lords day is by constitution of the most ancient Church, and therefore Jus humanum, a humane law: and how he jumps with Arminians and Papists, pag. 128.   

CHAP. XXIII.  
Examineth our adversary's doctrine about the abolishing of the jews Sabbath, and the proofs to prove it ceremonial, pag. 129. 130.  
Declareth, there is no ceremony in the fourth Commandment, yet if there had been, it cannot cause the Sabbath to vanish, pag. 131. 132.   

CHAP. XXIIII.  
Sheweth the absurdity of this opinion, that the Sabbath was translated by the Church, and of the distinction of his generality and speciality of the Commandment, pag. 133. 134.   

CHAP. XXV.  
Prooveth notwithstanding, that if the Church have just power to translate the day, the Commandment needs no translation, but stands in force to bind us to that day, pag. 135. 136.   

CHAP. XXVI. Prooveth.  
that the speciality of the fourth Commandment enjoining one day of seven, and the seventh, and a whole day, and that with precise vacancy from work, is moral, pag. 138. to 144.  
In special, that Gomarus his evasions are frigid and senseless, page 140, 141.  
That the Commandment yields enforcing consequents for the Lords day, page 144.   

CHAP. XXVII.  
Prooveth that the Commandment of God bindeth equally, and as strongly for the Lord's day, as it did for the jewish Sabbath, pag. 146.   

CHAP. XXVIII.  
Disprooveth the distinction of Sanctification and exact vacation on the Sabbath, and the Instance of the Pope's Succession of Peter, Idly applied to the Lords days Succession of the jewish Sabbath, page 147, 148.   

CHAP. XXIX. Delivereth  
Authorities of Fathers, to prove a general restraint of labours on the Lord's day, page 149, to 152.  
The constitution of Constantine answered by constitutions of the same Emperor, and by that of Leo with an Apology in brief for Constantine, page 152, 153.  
The clearing of the Council of Laodicea, page 154, 155, 156.   

CHAP. XXX. Sheweth  
the vanity of our Adversary's Reasons and wish, to persuade (notwithstanding his Doctrine) as devout an observation of the Lords day, as the jews held of their day, page 157, 158, 159.  
The sound Doctrine of our Church concerning the Sabbath, and the full concord between it and ours, with the plain dissent thereof from our Adversaries, page 159, 160, 161.   

CHAP. XXXI. Delivereth  
Constitutions of Churches and Edicts of Princes, that forbidden and censure light works, page 162, 163.  
Constitutions that bound Masters in commanding, and free the Servants in obeying that day, page 163, 164.   

CHAP. XXXII. Sheweth  
three limitations laid down by the Apostles, touching Servants obedience, page 167, 168.  
There can come no dishonour to the Gospel, nor inconvenience to servants dwelling with heathen masters, by their observing of the Sabbath. pag. 170. 171. 172.  
This doctrine is no seminary of disturbance or contumacy, p. 173.  
The obedience to this command doth not alienate masters from their Christian servants, pag. 173. 174.   

CHAP. XXXIII. Sheweth  
that Antiquity doth bear out the servant in refusing the doing of servile works at his master's command upon the Lord's day, pag. 176. 177.  
That the cause of the persecution of Christians, was their withdrawing of themselves from obedience to their superiors, pag. 178.  
What the Heathens and many of the Papists do teach concerning this doctrine▪ pag. 179.   

CHAP. XXXIV. Sheweth  
that Master Breerwoods' doctrine is like the waters of Marah and Meribah, page 181.  
That the fruits of this doctrine can be no other, but disturbance and sedition, by five consequences that follow upon it, pag. 181. 182.   

CHAP. XXXV. Answereth  
Master Breerwoods' provocation and adjuration to a polemicke discourse. pag. 183.   

CHAP. XXXVI. Sheweth  
the true relation of the occasion of the controversy betwixt Master Breerwood and Master Byfield.  
That Master Byfield did not indeed give any such advice to John Breerwood.  
That this pretended scruple did not make John Breerwood disobedient to his Master, who would not urge him, nor did it occasion his hard usage, nor tend to his ruin; his Master being deceived with his false pretences, desired the more to enjoy him.    

THE SECOND PART CONTAINS A BRIEF SURVEY OF Master BREERWOODS Reply, and  
Sheweth  

THAT Master byfield's declining of the controversy with Master Breerwood, could not impeach his Knowledge, Zeal, or Charity, pag. 193. 194. 195.  
That Master Breerwood opposeth God's Sabbath, pag. 195. 196.  
That the Commandment concerning the Rest and Sanctification of the Sabbath, was given to Adam, pag. 197.  
divers distinctions used by Master Breerwood against this truth, answered, pag. 197. 198. 199. 200.  
The true sense of the words of the text, Genesis 2. verse 2, 3. pag. 202.  
Authorities to confirm that exposition, pag. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207.  
The Commandment concerning the Sabbath, was one of the ten perpetual words from the beginning, pag. 208, 209.  
That place in the 56. of Esay. 4, 5. must be understood of the Christian Sabbath. pag. 210.  
No mystical Sabbath spoken of in the Scripture, pag. 210.  
The Sabbath translated by the authority of Christ, pag. 211, 212.  
That place in Matthew 24. 20. meant of the Christian Sabbath, proved at large, pag. 213, 214.  
That the Ceremonies of the old Law were deadly at the time of the siege of Jerusalem, pag. 215.  
That the old Sabbath was not observed in the East Churches 300. years after our Saviour's death, as Master Breerwood affirmeth, pag. 216.  
The sufficiency of Master byfield's Reasons, not to answer the Treatise at that time, sent to him by Master Breerwood, pag. 218, to 222.  
A letter of Master Breerwoods', in which he promiseth, that this controversy between him and Master Byfield shall never be made public, pag. 223, etc.   
FINIS.   

❧ A TABLE OF THE ABSURD AND GROSS POsitions, that lie scattered in this Treatise of the Sabbath, written by Master BREERWOOD.  

1 THe servant, as touching bodily labour, is merely subject to his Master's power, pag. 11.  
2. The servant, as touching bodily service incident to mankind, is in like degree of subjection to his Master, as is the Ox and Ass, pag. 11.  
3. Children are merely under their Parent's power, as the Cattles are under their owners, pag. 13.  
4. Servants are under their Master's power for service only, pag. 14.  
5. A servant cannot justly perform any labour which his Master forbids, nor omit any which his Master commands, pag. 14.  
6. If the fourth Commandment * be given to servants, they cannot keep it 
Their calling carrieth a necessity of breaking the Law, as this Author would have it.  as they are the servants of men, pag. 17.  
7. The compassion and goodness of God is such, that it agreeth not therewith to give to man such a Commandment, which, through the wickedness of other men, he cannot keep without an inconvenience and mischief, that is, without sharp punishment, pag. 17.  
8. Sin essentially is nothing else, but the inordinate and unruly election or resolution of the will varying from the Scripture or God's Law, pag. 19  
9 Outward unlawful actions are not sin properly, pag. 19  
10. Actions are no whit further sinful than they are voluntary, pag. 20.  
11. The guilt of sin is the form of sin, pag. 12.  
12. The eye beholding vanity, the tongue lose to blaspheme, slander and lie, and the hand stretched out to shed blood, sinne not, pag. 20.  
13. To work on the Lord's day, is certainly no breach of any divine Commandment, pag. 37.  
14. The designment of the first day of the week to be Sabbath, is but ceremonial, pag. 42.  
15. God's resting from Creation was his Sabbath, and his resting in himself, the sanctification thereof; other institution or sanctification of the Sabbath in Paradise, will never be proved out of the place in Gen. 2. 2. pag. 63, 64.  
16. The Sabbath for the moral part of it (I keep his own phrase) became in the wilderness on Sinai one of the ten perpetual words, not before, pag. 67.  
17. By the judicial law of Moses it was death for a man in case of necessity or danger, to departed from the place of his residence on the Sabbath, further than a sabbath-days journey▪ pag. 73.   
FINIS.   

THE PREFACE.  
BEfore I touch upon this Antisabbato-Dominicall Pamphlet to grapple with it, it is requisite briefly to skan the title and sentences of Scripture prefixed; and to propose the case or question controverted.  
First▪ the Book is entitled, A learned Treatise of the Sabaoth. What the Treatise affords shall be seen anon, God willing: the Title savours of little learning, wherein for Sabbath is written Sabaoth, which signifieth, hosts, as in 
a Esay 1. 9  Esay, Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a remnant. What hosts bringeth in this Treatise? What, the hosts of flies, of which Saint Austin speaketh 
b Serm. de temp. 95. Consideremus ergo cur & ibi decem praecepta, & hic decemplagae memorentur: ideo sine dubio, quia in illis erant vulnera, in●stis medicamenta. Attendite tertiam plagam huic tertio praecepts contrariam. Cyniphesnati sunt in terra Aegyptide lino, muscae minutissimae, inquiretissimae, inordinate volantes, in oculos irruen●●s, non permittentes hominem quirescere, dum abiguntur i●erum irruunt, dum expulsae suerint, iterum redeunt. Quales istae sunt muscae, tol●s sunt homines inquieti, qui Sabba●●m spiritalitèr observares: id est, bonis operibus studere, & lectioni vel orationi insist●re nol●nt. ? Who comparing the ten Precepts and ten Plagues of Egypt together, as the diseases and the medicines, doth parallel the plague of flies to the Commandment of the Sabbath, and thus applieth it: Such as ●●e (saith he) these Dog-flies, (or Lice, as our Translation readeth it, Exod. 8. 16.) such are unquiet men, which will not spiritually observe the Sabbath, that is, which will not study good works, nor insist in reading and prayer. Hold ye the Precept, beware of the Plague. These are hosts under the command of that Don-Beelzebub 
c The Lord of Flies. . I would have imputed this to the Printers oversight, if either the Errata had mentioned it, or the whole Treatise in any one place had given the true Orthography. Well, but be it so, the Treatise plied to this Discourse, and therefore how profanely abused to God's high dishonour appeareth, by setting other places to them, and applying them to the matter in hand. Take them thus:  

The first place.  
Prove all things, hold fast that which is good. 1 Thes. 5. 21.  
Ill applied to try that reasoning, that blots out one precept of the Decalogue: Oppose that Text;  
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them the same, shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. Matth. 5. 19   

The second place.  
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.  
Ill applied against the work of the Spirit in Christians, and the intent of the Lord. See those Texts;  
I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people. jerem. 31. 33. Heb. 8. 11.  
The Lord is well-pleased for his righteousness sake, he will magnify the Law, and make it honourable. Esay 42. 21.   

The third place.  
Holy Father, Sanctify them through thy truth: Thy Word is truth. joh. 17. 17.  
Ill applied against the great things of the Law written by Gods own finger. Look to that Text;  
I have written to him the great things of my Law: but they were counted as a strange thing. Hos. 8. 12.  
Thirdly, now for the matter controverted: this learned Treatise hath in it the occasion, and the substance. We take the last first, that all may the better judge of every passage only out of the first part, viz. the occasion thereof. The Case of Conscience questioned must be proposed to clear the words of the whole Discourse, that the force of the arguments against it in this Treatise may be seen, and the blunting of their edge if they have any, or the unsheathing of them, that all may see they are but wooden Daggers, may be apparent to every understanding. The Author of this Treatise states it thus, and so opposeth it as untruth.   

Breerwood. Pag. 3.  
THat for a servant to do light businesses▪ 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 Commandment 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.  
This is the point oppugned by our Adversary, whose reasons shall be delivered in his own words and confuted: I will neither add nor diminish, but only cut it into parts, that every part may receive its answer apart. This prefaced, I proceed.    


CHAP. I. Breerwood. Pag. 4. l. 29.  
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 commandment 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 Sabaoth 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 and imposed to the servants themselves, or to the masters whose servants they are? For if the Commandment be not given to them, then do they not 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, and 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.  

Answer.  
First, the Commandment is given to servants also, the Words are, Thou, nor thy servant, which referred to the former, Thou shalt do no manner of work, can have no other sense than this; thou shalt do no manner of work, that art the master, nor thy servant shall do no manner of work 
a Father and son, son and daughter, bond and free, were bound religiously to observe it. Doct. Slater, in the Minister's portion, pag. 95. : the Commandment of ceasing from work not given of him only, but to him also. For, how know you, that the commandment is given to the master but because the Lord saith, thou (meaning, that hast a servant) shalt do no manner of work? And can you be so purblind as not to see, the Commandment is given aswell to the servant, when it is thus delivered in the same form, Thy servant shall do no manner of work? Nay, consider, you the Publisher (for, as for the Author he knoweth already by the issue whether his collection hence were sound or no, and if he might have the favour the Saints had that aroseat our Saviour's resurrection, jam persuaded he would judge this Treatise to the fire, and therefore) you the Publisher I say, and all ye that fear God, and know that a bored ear is the best Sacrifice, consider, The Commandment is given to the servant, as a servant, and as thy servant. I will not work, mayest thou say, but my servant shall, his work is mine by Covenant. The Lord with whom there is neither bond nor free, interposeth, and saith not, thou shalt not command him to work, but thus, thy servant shall not work. What is this but to say, as servant and as thine, he shall not work. As if he said, at other times his work is thine, but now his work is mine: thy covenant shall not infringe his covenant with his God. As thy servant, he is not thine in thy works or servile works that day, but the Lords freeman, yet thy servant that day by thee to be enjoined to the Lords work, God's servant to be free from thy works. Thou must observe the Commandment in thine own person, and preserve it in the persons under thy charge, thy servant must do no manner of thy servile work that day, but must be thy servant to be ordered for the Lords work. Consider it well and see, the matter forbidden is the servile cares and labours of the household, both of masters about servants, and of Servants towards their Masters.  
Secondly, and seeing we are afforded by your good leave to consider the Commandment, let us with your patience (for I cannot but think the heart of any deceiving or deceived, is not only stumbled but convinced by the former words) weigh the Words of the precept, from which I thus reason:  
First, The servant, eo nomine as a servant, is commanded to remember the day, therefore as a servant the Commandment is given to him to cease from his servile work, or the work of a servant. For is he to remember a part and not all the precept? Or may he earth himself in forgetfulness, and put all on his master's memory.  
Again, the servant as a servant is commanded to keep the day holy. If any deny this, than God and Caesar cannot have their due, God & callings cannot stand together, God and societies must subvert each other; and is this your quiet peaceable doctrine, that ruins all and brings confusion? Yield the Antecedent and then this conclusion will follow, that he is a a servant commanded not to work: For rest on the day is enjoined, that holiness may be followed, and cessation from work forbidden, to whom holiness is commanded, as the words run, Remember the Sabbath or resting day, to keep it holy.  
Besides, That permissive mandate is not only given of, but to the servant, six days thou shalt labour and do all that thou hast to do, therefore the command for the seventh day's rest is not only given of, but to the servant: for the commands of both, respect the same persons.  
Likewise this Command, Thou shalt not do any work, is given to him that is contained in the word, Thou: but the servant as thy servant is contained in the word, thou; and is it not given to him then? For the words following expound the first Thou, Thou shalt not. Who mean you by this Thou? who but thou master, thy servant; thou father, thy son; thou mother, thy daughter, etc.  
Further, the Commandment is given to them to whom the reasons of the Command reach, but they reach alike to thy servant as to thee; therefore the Command reacheth alike to thy servant as to thee. And if you say, yea, the reasons reach to all alike to persuade to sanctify, but not to all alike to forbear work; It is false: for, beside that there can be no sanctification without cessation from servile works, the reasons do equally and strongly bend to persuade cessation from work; as the reason from the right of the Lawgiver appropriating it to himself and his worship, the equity of the Law which giveth six for work, and restrains but for one day, the example of God, and the special blessing given to the day.  
To come to handy-gripes with you: you yield, the servants work is forbidden. I demand, Is it forbidden; because it hinders the master only from sanctifying the day, or the servant also? Surely, because it hinders the servant chiefly, and not the master, or not chiefly: his work crosseth the end of the Sabbath in him, if therefore the command of sanctifying the day be to him as a servant, the command of ceasing from work is to him as a servant.  
Let me again reason with you from the command; if the negative be of the servant, and not to the servant, then also is the affirmative, which is this, Thou shalt do the works of holiness that day: and from hence will follow this gross absurdity, that if the servant go not to the assemblies, nor apply himself to works of holiness, and the master also do not bid him, his master only sinneth, and not the servant; because according to your new learning, the master is charged with the servant for the works of holiness, and the servants holiness that day is the matter only of the Command: the master and not the servant is the subject person commanded. This Command, Thou shalt do the works of holiness, is of the servants holy work, but no precept to the servant. It may be you will flee off here-from, but you are caught in your own net, as sure as the negative precept hath his affirmative every way proportionable.  
Thirdly, and seeing store is no sore, where each apart will make a party good 
b Quae pros●nt singula multa juvant. , I add: He that gave the Law, knoweth best the meaning of his own Law; let us see from his Word in other Texts the persons that stand expressly charged. To whom is it given? In jer. 17. 20. to the Kings of judah, to all judah, to all the Inhabitants of jerusalem that entered in by those gates was this Command given of ceasing from work; of bearing no burden on the Sabbath day: Were the jewish servants none of judah, none of jerusalems' inhabitants, none of those that entered in and went out by jerusalems' gates? To whom is the Command of the Sabbath rest given? In Exod. 34. 21. to him that serves, these are the words of the Text, Six days thou shalt serve 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in eating time and in harvest thou shalt rest. Now who serveth so properly as a servant; and is not the original word the same that notes is that serving, and a servant 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , save that one is the Verb, and the other the Noun? And what serving doth it signify? No other than that service of servants, 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  of household servants, of such as till the ground. There can be no way to 
Servitus, ministerium, samulatus, cultura.  exclude the servant at all from the charge of this precept.  
Fourthly, besides all this, how is your doctrine built on the words of this Commandment; the Law saith, Thou and thy servant shall do no work; you say, it only saith, Thou shalt not command thy servant to work. Again, take your saying, the Law bindeth the Master from commanding, and will this follow, therefore it binds the servant to obey his master, if he should be so wicked as to command what God prohibits him. This is a plain nonsequitur, and can not hold together by all the Geometry in the World, nor can any Carpenter make this join, but such lose reasonings hold best for them that would go in a broad way. Now weaken these following arguments if you can.  
Fifthly, he that is circumcised is bound to keep the whole Law, and none is bound by your own confession, but he to whom the Law is given: the jewish servant then, being circumcised, was bound to keep this Law as given to him. The circumcised, saith the Apostle, is a debtor to do the whole Law 
f Gal. 5. 3. .  
Sixthly, he that wrought on the Sabbath being a stranger, was not fit for communion and ordinary conversing with the jews, as appeareth by the words of the Commandment, that charged the stranger within the gate to rest that day, and by the practice of Nehemiah, that drove such from within and without the City jerusalem, and by a like instance of leaven at the Feast of the Passeover, and of unleavened bread. For if the stranger that sojourned only, and was not borne in the Land, did this while eat that which was leavened, he was to be cut off from the Congregation of Israel 
g Exod. 12. 19 See Junius on the place. . Now shall the servant be left to the subjection to that command, that makes him unfit for communion with the people of God? God forbidden. Yet thus would you provide for servants, and be such a sinner against their souls.  
Seventhly, how much better might you have tuned to Lyra's Harp, than to run a new strain; he saith thus 
h Non loquitur de adultis, qui jam sciebant legem Sabbati, quia prohibiti sunt simul cum parentibus: sed hoc additur propueris ignorantibus legem, qui non debebant permitti dparentibus aliquid operari in diem Sabbati. Lyra. , he speaketh not of those of ripe age, which did now know the Law of the Sabbath, because they are forbidden together with their parents: but this is added for children's sake, that knew not the Law, which ought not to be permitted to do any works on the Sabbath day. This interpretation he had from Rabbi Solomon. I do not say, it is the truth of the place, but this I say, you have neither truth nor patron for your abortive opinion.  
Let all Christians be warned how they receive every one that pretends Scripture; all Heretics were such, according to that of Irenaeu●, they were evil Expositors of things well spoken 
i Pravi expositores probè dictorum. Iraeneus l. 1. advers. Haeres. in prooem. : Satan laid his most dangerous assaults against Christ, and would persuade them by Scripture too. Behold here one professing to stay within the compass of the Word, and by a futilous distinction of of, and to, errs from the A. B. C. Such words fiet like a Canker or Gangrene 
k 2 Tim. 2. 17, 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. .  
It shall be your wisdom, not to serve God by distinctions, and to learn Divinity of your Teachers, and not Divisions of Sophisters.    

CHAP. II. Breerwood. Pag. 5. 6.  
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 Paschall Lamb: again, that no Ammonite nor Moabite should enter into the Congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation. Good Sir tell me, did the Stranger sin if he eat of the Passeover being supposed invited? or did the Ammonites and 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.  

Answer.  
First, I reply, these Commandments are not parallel, and so your ground faileth: these Commandments; I say, this, Thy servant shall do no manner of work; and this, No stranger shall eat of the Passeover. In the first, you acknowledge the master's work is forbidden to the master, whether done by himself or by his servant. In the latter, the Passeover forbidden to the stranger, is enjoined to the jew. The jew must eat the Passeover, the jew must not admit the stranger to eat, but the master must not work, and must not admit his servant to work. The thing prohibited, viz. to do servile work on the Sabbath, is sinful in itself, but the eating of the Passeover (which is the thing forbidden the stranger) was the special worship of God, his ordinance and service, required of the jew. Now this makes a wide difference in the sense of those precepts that sound alike: for where the thing is evil it cannot but be evil who ever doth it, that is capable of the divine precept, as the servant is; for he is a reasonable creature, and was a jew: but where the thing itself is holy, it becomes evil only to him that profaneth and defileth it.  
The jew is made the observer of the Passeover, and the preserver of it from the stranger's observation, but here the master and servant are both made observers of the command of ceasing from work, and the master is to preserve it to the servants observation.  
Besides, where the words run in the same form, the precepts are not presently parallel, or the prohibitions: for to make them so, the parties commanded must stand alike capable of the Law, or uncapable. we'll not go fare for instance; the words in this precept are every way for form of words parallel, Thy son shall do no manner of work, the stranger within thy gate shall do no manner of work; yet the form of the precept is not the same because the son of the jew stood otherwise obliged to the Sabbath, as yourself do yield, pag. 25. than the stranger. And to put it beyond all exception, these for form of words are parallel, Thy son shall do no work, Thy cattles shall do no work; yet the precept is not parallel, because the son is capable of God's Law to obey it properly, and the 
Soli homines capaces sunt propriae legit. Zuarez. de leg. l. 1. c. 6.  cattles are not. There is a difference between the form of precepts, and the form of words, in which precepts are signified. The form of the precept must partly be gathered from the subjects, to which they have reference, and as they are capable, or less capable of law, so the precepts to be understood: for the Law in its own nature carrieth a certain respect and disposition to them, on whom it is imposed 
m Lex essential●●er quandam habitudinem ad eos dic●●, quibut imponitur. Zuarez. l. 1. ca 6. de leg. . Now for the Law of the Passeover, the stranger was not so capable of it, as being not under the Law; but the servant being a jew, is alike capable of the Law of the fourth Commandment as is his Master, because equally under the Law. What the Law speaketh, it speaketh to them who are under the Law 
n Rom. 3. 19 , saith the Apostle.  
Secondly, I affirm, that the strangers, Moabites and Ammonites, did sin in thus doing, though invited or admitted, they profaned holy things, as Balthasar did the Bowls of the Temple 
o Dan. 5. ●. . Now the jews sinful invitation cannot take away their profanation. It is all one as if a Pagan living among us, that refused our Religion, and were not baptised, should yet come and eat of the Bread of the Lord, though some Minister for some by respect should be supposed to invite him. There were among the jews strangers that kept house, and had servants, that yet were no Proselytes, but only strangers within the gates; these sinned against this precept, if they would kill the Passeover and eat it, although the sews should through remissness suffer it. Further, that a stranger may sinne against a precept given of him, is clear by that precept in vers. 48. of chap. 12. of Exodus, Let all his males be circumcised, and then let him keep the Passeover. The commandment is given expressly to the Israelites of the stranger, and yet if that stranger should out of Zipporah's tenderness hide or spare a male, and so eat, all the jews held that he sinned against this precept given of him 
p Maimony in Korb. Pesach. c. 5. 5. 5. . It is evident also by the penalty laid on the stranger, with whom leavened bread was found and eaten on the Feast of unleavened bread, he was to be cut off from the Congregation of Israel (for punishment is to be inflicted only upon transgressors) and yet the Commandment of keeping the Feast of unleavened bread was given to the jews only in any fonne of words that we find vers. 15, 17.  
Thirdly, and for your instances, I have yet further to except against them, as they are alleged by you.  
This precept, No stranger shall eat thereof 
q Exod. 12. 43. , hath been understood to bind the stranger there mentioned, aswell as the jew▪ for the Chaldee Paraphrast renders it thus; No son of Israel that is Apostate, shall eat of it: Now the Apostate Israelite sinned if he ate, aswell as the jew that invited him to eat, the persons that were unclean legally at the day of the Passeover sinned, if they kept it at that season, though the Governors took no notice of it, or would permit it. Numb. 9 6, 7, 10, 11.  
And for the Moabite and Ammonite 
r Deut. 23. 3.  it is clear, that it is spoken of them converted, & made Proselytes, who stood therefore bound to keep the whole Law, as being circumcised: for the Law speaketh of a temporal punishment to be inflicted on them to the tenth generation after their conversion; the one hundred generation of them remaining Heathen had been still fare from admission. These than did break this command of God, aswell as the jews that admitted them, though the command in your opinion be given but of them, and it is also in part true. And that they did break this precept, appears also by the example of the burst, and of the bastard 
s Deut. 23. 1, 2. , the commandments are given in the same form, given of them to the Governors, yet bound them of whom given: For God by his prohibition makes them uncapable of such an honour and privilege, if they should rush upon holy things when he hath interdicted them, their profaneness and contempt were great. I retort therefore your instances thus: The strangers, Moabites and Ammonites forbidden these holy things, though the precept were of them chief, and to the jews principally touching them, did profane them, transgress the Law, and did proudly rush upon things peculiar, if they meddled therewith: therefore much more the servant, though the precept be of him chief, and to his master principally concerning him, if he work on the Sabbath, profanes it, transgresseth the Law, and proudly rusheth upon the privileged and peculiar time enclosed by the Lord of time himself. It is clearly the Lords intent, that the master should not suffer, nor charge his servant to work this day; and as clearly the Lord's meaning, that the servant should not do his masters work that day which is the Lords, and not his master's day.    

CHAP. III. Breerwood. Pag. 6.  
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 abroad. If notwithstanding 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 
* Here the sense carrieth that you must read, be doth not the former; that is, he doth not transgress the Prince's commandment, or else the force of this instance is lost: correct it thus then, though the Errata have not seen it.  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.  

Answer.  
First, this agreeth not with that in the commandment; for the Lord saith not thus, Thou shalt not suffer thy servant to work; but thus, Thy servant shall not work. If the Prince's command were this; Thy servant shall do no work of thine, that he may attend on me in my house, and on my work without avocations and disturbance, did not the servant transgress the Prince's charge, if he forsook the Prince, and obeyed his master? or would his masters command excuse him in doing that which was against the Prince's command, or in neglecting the Prince's service? Sure this doctrine of yours would leave Princes persons, kingdoms, and necessities days thou shalt labour, is likewise of indulgence: for the jews in keeping the days of Purim-festivals sinned not. Yea, sometimes that cometh under the form of a command in words, which is only spoken by concession, when yet the thing so granted is not allowed or approved for good, as when the Apostle saith, Be angry, but sin not 
e Ephes. 4. 26. . Be angry, is in words of precept, yet spoken only by concession, and yet no way alloweth the anger he speaketh of: for that he speaketh not of a laudable anger is evident, when it followeth, let not the Sun go down upon your wrath. How needful is it that we understand this thing distinctly, lest we be deceived with the show of a command? To return then, that learned Scotchman, Camero, giveth us this excellent rule, whereby to know a precept that is of indulgence, or of Empire and Lawlike charge, as I may say truly; Whatsoever, saith he 
f Sanè quicquid Deus prescribit quod non simplicitèr benesicii, sed officii rationem habet, idest d Dei imperio: itaque in distinguendis iis quae mandatorum formâ concipiuntur in Scripturâ, id semper ob oculos habendum est, pertineantur res prescriptae ad officium, an verò ad beneficium & privilegium simplicitèr: quod si occurrat in mandato officii ratio, non est profectò indulgentia sed imperium. Simplicitèr, inquam, nullum enim exigit officium Deus à creatura quod idem reipsa non sit benesicium, sed benesicium simpliciter Domino in quo nalla se ostendit ratio officii erga Deum. Joh. Camero ●om. 1. prelect. ad Mat. cap. 18. vers. 15. pag. 15. , God doth prescribe which hath not the reason and nature of a benefit simply, but of a duty and office, that is from the Empire of God. And afterwards explaining himself, he addeth; I say simply a benefit; for God requires no duty of his creature which is not in the thing itself a benefit, but that is simply a benefit in which no nature of a duty towards God doth show itself. Now follow this Rule, and who sees not that this precept, Thy servant shall do no work on the Sabbath, hath in it chief the nature of office and duty the servant oweth to God as well as the master, even the observation of the Sabbath to God, though in a second place here is a matter of fatherly indulgence, God graciously tendering the servants (as he doth also the very bruit beast, for whose ease he mercifully provides that day. Now Master Publisher, if you have any mind to put questions, you shall have leave, if you please, to ask as many more.    

CHAP. 4. Breerwood. Pag. 7.  
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 manservant, 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.  

Answer.  
First, this proof is sufficiently overthrown by all the former arguments, yet I add: This precept is directed to the parents restraining the use of their power to interrupt, and enjoining the use of their power to preserve the sanctification of the day; and to the son and daughter also not to work at the household work: for, saith God 
g Levit. 23. 3. , The seventh day is the Sabbath of rest, and holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein; it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings. Who are these charged in the word, ye? Who, but ye that stand bound to come to the holy convocations; ye that constitute families; therefore ye children as well as ye parents.  
Secondly, and to free all that subscribe to this truth from fear of so much as any private interpretation, and to cast it be commanded nor entreated (licence would serve their turn) but to the masters whose desire of gain by the servants labour might stand betwixt the Sabaoth and the servants 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 and observe the Sabaoth, as it is in the vulgar English, Latin and Greek translations? No they are all short, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, to make a day of rest. 
Deut. 5. 15.  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 governor's: 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 masters 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.   

Answer.  
First, your first way of confirming your exposition was by instance; than you go on to proofs from texts, whereof the first taken out of the commandment was taken off in the former Chapter: this is your second proof built on the text in Deu. 5. And here because you flaunt it out in many words, and in many of them glance at things as if they made to your purpose, besides the main of your argument, I thus reply, first, to your reason drawn from the text: secondly, to some chief passages in the venting of it.  
The substance of the reasoning is this in brief: Moses applieth the precept of servants rest, to the masters that were slaves in Egypt, but now ransomed and set in the estate of freemen, that they should allow their servants rest, and make the Sabbath a resting day, therefore the commandment (thou shalt not do any work) is given only to the masters. It is applied to the masters, therefore given to them, were a right consequence: but therefore to them only, is fallacious, for more is in the consequent, than was in the Antecedent: and if you put the word (only) into the Antecedent, then both the propositions are false: For in Levit. 19 3. as above was specified, Moses applieth it to children. And the argument is yet unsolid, for it stands thus, Moses applieth it in his expositions only to masters, therefore it was given only to masters: for applications are according to several occasions, but not always extended to the utmost breadth of the precept, and yet in all this Moses fidelity no way impeached, inasmuch as he faithfully applieth where it most needeth as occasion serveth (keeping the bounds of truth. These consequents from this place as you expound it, may be gathered; therefore that reason binds not servants, or this, therefore the master sins most ungratefully that will disturb his servants rest: or this, therefore it is given chief to the masters, as those that must not only keep, but make a Sabbath; all which we yield: but the mind that once is big of a new fancy, maketh all that it feedeth upon, nourish that fancy.  
Secondly, the truth is, the Lord by Moses pleads in those words, the reason of the right that he hath to command thy servant rest, who is his freeman by virtue of that redemption; the servant as well as the master called into the liberty of his holy people, as appeareth in the Preface to the Decalogue, Exod. 20. and in Exod. 19 4, 5, 6. bond and free indifferently entertained into the privilege and honour of the Covenant, and into the band of it: and the reason the master hath both to obey, and yield up his servant for that day to Gods commanding and appointing, and also to use his authority for God, in seeing that his servant keep the Sabbath: but in other respects both master and servant to rejoice alike in the great work of their redemption.  
Thirdly, but let us examine more narrowly some of the special passages.  
Moses addeth in vers. 14. that thy manservant and maid-servant may rest as well as thou; it is to this (Thou) therefore to whom this charge is directed, etc.] Which (thou?) that in those words, thou and thy son. That makes nothing to the exemption of the servant, as thy servant from the obligation of the first thou, which is this, thou shalt do no manner of work: for thy servant is one contained under this thou, as well as thou art that art the master. Or if it be meant of this first thou, that were absonant from the very context. It being meant of the latter thou, we must ask what you mean when you say, it is to this thou to whom this charge is directed. Mean you by charge, the charge to make the servants rest? That you say afterwards were needless, they need but licence, and neither command nor entreat. Or mean you the charge to give them leave to rest? nay, that is against your own reading, the master is to make a day of rest, and your own interpretation, to make it to be so, importeth not only to observe it himself, but to cause others also to observe it. Or by charge, mean you the command, Thy servant shall do manner of work; and this is directed to this thou; namely, the master of the servant? Well, be it so: And what will follow thence? Why surely this; Thou master must know that God commands thy servant to rest, and thee to make him keep the Sabbath day: but not this; Thou art commanded to rest, but thy servant is not commanded to rest, but may work if thou biddest him, the sin and peril is thine only. What new Divinity and Logic is this? We see then, here is some motion in, but no promotion of your cause. Nay, because the command is given that the servant may rest as well as the master, and that all might be free to attend on God's service that day alike; therefore it cannot be that the servant should remain bound to the commands of the master for servile work on that day. For as master Calvin well observes, 
i Calvin in quartum praeceptum. Tenendum est, propriè spectatum fuisse unum Dei cultum? Scimus enim totum Abrahae genus sic fuisse Deo sacrum, ut serviessent quaedam accessio, unde & circumcisio illis communis fuit.  We must hold this, that the alone worship of God was properly looked unto: but we know (saith he) the whole offspring of Abraham was so sacred to God, that this that they were servants was a certain accession, whence also circumcision was common to them all.  
If the commandment of rest had been directly and immediately given to servants.] Doth your own conscience know and force out this acknowledgement, that it is given to them, though not directly and immediately?  
Would not servants overset & wearied with six day's toil, be of themselves glad to rest on the seventh] These interrogations are brought in, to set on the proof, that the commandment of rest was not given at all to servants: but how ill they conclude, may be seen by these certain truths. That the servant (if not religious, which God looks not to find, but by his word to make us such)▪ had rather oft time's work for his master, than be employed in the duties of sanctification for a part, much more for all the day: for they are more irksome to flesh and blood, than handy work. True, that question might take more place, if it were rest alone that were aimed at, and not rest for an higher end. That the master (if covetous and profane) will not stand upon pleasing or displeasing God, in requiring such unlawful work, but respect his gain more than all, and to the utmost call for the servants work that day, when the servant in the Court of God and man can have no redress; yea out of irreligious petulancy he will most exact work then. Again, that the toiled servant will be oft ready to work for himself, as in mending his clothes, or the like; now the master is charged to remember the condition of his slavery, that he may not dare to overset his s●rvant with work in the six days, but every way make a Sabbath day.  
Hath it any other but to declare, etc.] Yes, it declares Gods just title over their servants to command them that day, and their unequal and wicked carriage, if they should offer to plead their covenant to evert God's covenant.  
Which reason could not be intended, nor directed to them that still remained in servitude] No: not at all intended, nor could be. This redemption proved them Gods servants, and not theirs, nor any man's to use them as slaves to use them as servants on the Sabbaths: as we read in Levit. 25. vers. 39, 41 42. Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant, he shall return in the year of jubilee, for they are my servants which I brought out of the Land of Egypt, And in vers. 53. 55. The stranger (meaning to whom the poor jew was sold) shall not rule with rigour over him, he shall go out in the year of jubilee; for unto me the children of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the Land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God. Here the servant saw that God put no difference between bond and free, and that the Sabbath made master and servant equal in respect of freedom for attendance on God. 
k Cessati●nem indixit, ut fulgeret ubique Sabbathi Sanctitas, at que ita ad ejus observantiam terrae conspectu magis animarentur filii Israël. Calvin. come. in 4. praeceptum. in Leu. c. 25.  Those Sabbaths of years had all respect to engrave on them the respect of this Sabbath. Hear no slavery (but liberty for God's service, which is perfect freedom,) may pass upon the redeemed: and therefore their servitude did not make the Redemption void to them. But such an Expositor as you are, would leave them slaves, because servants, and slaves without intermission, even on the Lord's Sabbath; to drudgery, and not the Lords servants, when yet they were the Redeemed of the Lord equally as their masters were. Thus you derogate from the breadth of the commandment, and the reasons, and clip the wings of Scripture, while you take that precept to belong only to masters, and the master enjoyed no further than to make a rest for his servant, when the text saith, He shall make a Sabbath day. And the whole reason applied to the Sabbaths rest for servants sounds no less than this, Remember when thou wast in Egypt the Egyptians made thee a slave, and marred the Sabbath day; now I have set thee free thou shalt free thy servant that day, and make the Sabbath day.  
Moses reasons are evidently directed to the masters, not to the servants; therefore the servant working at the master's command sinneth not.] What reasoning is this; the master is by arguments persuaded to make a day of rest, & therefore the servant must work if the master bid him: or therefore he is not commanded to make a holy rest to his servant.  
Who as touching bodily labour are merely subject to their master's power.] This merely in this place must needs exclude God's power over the servant, that he may not lawfully command him in any thing that respects the use of bodily labour, but only his master: which wicked ground laid, it will follow that the Lord may not command the master to let his servant rest, but only entreat or persuade, but the Lord speaks pro imperio as a Lord and Emperor, thy servant shall rest. This merely takes in all time, so that the master may require their work, and not allow them any time for solemn worship; now it is certain that no man hath power to sell himself to any in such a manner, no more than he hath to sell himself from God and to the devil; for take away time from solemn worship, and that falls to the ground, nothing can be done in an instant; take away solemn worship and you are without God, jer. 10. 25▪ and without him, under the power of Satan, Act. 26. 18. This merely in a word taketh away all bounds, & maketh the servant's bondage and the master's power infinite. Now Plato saith well, 
l Servitus & libertas infinita nullisque cancellis circumscripta, summum est malum, quod si modo quodammodo definiatur, summum bonum. Optimo illa modo constat servitus, quae Deo paret. Plat. tom. 3. Epist. 8.  Servitude and liberty that is infinite and circumscribed with nolimitte, is the chiefest evil: but if some way it be defined by measure, it is a chief good, that servitude stands in the best form, which obeyeth God. And Doct. Ames. 
m Ames. de conscientia, lib. 5. c. 23.  worthily in his Cases of Conscience, it is the general office of masters, neither to exercise nor to imagine it is permitted them, any absolute empire over their servants; but a limited dominion: the account whereof they must render to God as the common master of themselves and their servants, Ephes. 6. 9 Col. 4. 1.    

CHAP. VI Breerwood. Pag 11.  
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?  

Answer.  
First, No, we do not; it is imposed on servants, yet not on ox or ass: for the servant is forbidden labour, because he can labour without thee, and so he is capable properly of commandment to rest; but the Ox is not forbidden labour, but to be laboured and wrought; for he cannot work without thee, and is not capable of the commandment. The servant is therefore forbidden labour even in his master's work, that he might be vacant to holy duties, 
n Otio non otioso. Zanch. in 4. praecep.  not so the Ox. The servant is forbidden to be wrought by his master, because now he must acknowledge another master, in whose service he is this day commanded to work; with whom there is no respect of persons; and this end, the servants obedience to his masters unlawful commandment of work that day, would cross; no man can serve two masters. Moreover, doth God take care for Oxen? No doubt it was written for the servants sake, that he might not attend to guide the Ox's labour, and that mercy due to the Ox might call for more to man, Zanchy is express, that the commandment was given to the servant, he saith; 
o Neminem vult excludi a sanctificatione Sabbati: quia tam servi, quam domini: tam silii, quàm parents, tam advenae, quám indigenae obstricti Deo sunt, natique ●d ej●s cultum. De jumentis alia est ratio: non enim jubentur qui●scere à laboribus, ut possint vacare cultui divino sicut homines. Id. ibid.  God would have no man excluded from the sanctification of the Sabbath, because aswell servants as masters, sons as parents, strangers as home-born, are bound to God, and borne to his worship, touching beasts there is another reason, etc.  
Secondly, the Ox is forbidden to be wrought, that they might have no snare to draw them to work: and may a servant work at his master's command? how great a snare would this be to the master; who naturally (and such a master as will require his servant to work on that day, is not far from his pure naturals) loveth profit more than his soul; and fears a penny loss, where he thinks it might be gained, more than the breach of a precept that God threatens with the curse and hell? He will be ready not only to say with Rebecca, 
p Gen. 27. 13.  On me be the curse, my son, only do as Ibid; but in another tone; Sirrah, the sin and curse is mine; go you about your work, you shall not answer for my faults; how comes on you this new religion now? therefore I conclude against you thus, he that forbade the stranger's work, and the cattles, that all examples and occasions might be remooved that might entice to evil, it cannot be that he would leave son, daughter, man and maid in the family free to the master, that they should, and must obey him in his unlawful commands.  
Thirdly, and to requite you out of the Text. In the same form of words that the Ox and Ass is prohibited, the stranger within the gate of another, is also forbidden work, and is it not given to the stranger 
q It is partly understood of the strangers within the Covenant, those (saith Zanchy) without controversy were commanded so to sanctify the Sabbath even as other jews. Zanch. in ● praecep.  aswell as of? yet I hope you will not say it is given to the ox. If you say it is not given to the stranger; I urge you thus: The stranger is there meant partly of the stranger, which being a jew, is with thee for the time as a guest, 
r Dr. Williams of the Church, l. 2 c. 8.  and can this (that he is a guest) free him from the bond of this Law; or if the jew within whose gate he is, should require him to work, is he excused, because he is within his gate, as you say the servant is? Again, 
s Adiger● quisque paterfamilias potest & debet suos do nesticos a● externum cultum: cur non etiam magistratus suos subditos? Non enim a●t, memento ut sanctifices, monebis autem▪ seldom, sed memento ut sanctifices & ut alii tui sanctificent. Zanch. in 4. praeceptum.  the Governor is commanded to compel those within his gate to keep the rest, and to punish refractory: Will God authorize any to punish those that do not offend? and those do not offend, you say, to whom the Law is not given: those do not offend that can no more transgress a command, than the Ox or Ass. Furthermore, Zanchy saith expressly, that though upon the Sabbath, the heathen which did not agree with the jews in the true religion, did not come to their assemblies to be partakers of the sacrifices, and to the performance of other parts of God's service, which pertained to the sanctification of the Sabbath; yet they were commanded to rest upon that day, aswell as the home-born jews: 
t jubebantur feriari eo die, quemadmodum & judaei indigenae.  and he giveth one reason of this command, which concerneth the strangers themselves, namely, that they might after some sort be trained up in the knowledge of the Law of God 
u Isti jubebantur non simplicitèr quiescere: sed quiescere ut & ipsi suo modo Sabbatum sanctificare possent. Id. ibid. .  
Fourthly, therefore you must know, that the same form of words make not the like bond and obligation in a precept; nor the precept the same: For besides all that I have said before in chap. 2. 3. The end not only differenceth the precept and proveth it a precept, or a privilege, as here the end of the Ox's rest, as respecting the Ox, is merely rest; but of the servants, chiefly holiness, which labour servile wholly thwarteth; but also the end giveth the precept its modification: for the end of the prohibition of the servants labour, being the sanctification of the day, the servant is hereby bound to rest and apply himself to holiness and the master not only not to work him, or to admonish him to sanctify the day, but to compel him to the outward worship.    

CHAP. VII. Breerwood. Pag. 11.  
But as the labour of the beast is the sin and transgress of the Master, to whom the commandment of the beasts resting from labour was given, 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.  

Answer.  
First, here you deliver your Doctrine and your reason. Your Doctrine is this:  
The labour of the servant on the Sabbath done at his master's command is no more the servants sin, than the labour of the Ox is the Ox's sin. This beastly profane opinion deserves rather stripes than arguments: yet in a word or two:  
The labour of the Ox doth not violate the commandment of the Sabbath, but you acknowledge, the work of the servant doth, when in the words of the next page (pag. 12.) you say thus of the servants work this day, (the act indeed, wherewith the commandment of the Sabbath is violated, is the servants.)  
The Law of nature itself requireth in general of all men, the sanctification of times no less than of places, persons, and things unto God's honour: for which cause God exacts some parts of times by way of perpetual homage, never to be dispensed withal, nor remitted. Of this kind among the jews was the Sabbath day, the chief & general festival. Now Nature hath taught the Heathen, and God the jews, and Christ us (saith worthy 
x Hooker Eccles. pol. l. 5. sect. 70.  Hooker.) First, that festival solemnities are a part of the public exercise of Religion; secondly, that praise, liberality and rest are as natural elements, whereof solemnities consist. The labour of the servant, though enjoined by his master, on this day violates the rest and so the sanctification of that time, indispensable, irremissable to any man who oweth it by way of perpetual Homage unto God, by the obligation of the Law of Nature. For ordinary labour with festival services to God can neither easily concur, because painfulness and joy are opposite, nor decently, because while the mind hath just occasion to make her abode in the house of gladness, the weed of ordinary toil and travel becometh her not. Thus learned 
y Id. ibid.  Hooker again. Now can the masters command dissolve the eternal Law, and the servant filching holy time be found less sinful than one profane and sacrilegious? But what kin between Oxen, Asses, and the everlasting Covenant and Holy times? Let them to their stalls, and servants as Christ's freemen to the assemblies in the beauty of holiness, as they will answer it to the God of Nature, the eternal Lawgiver.  
When the servant hath no more soul than the ox, nor holiness and attendance on Gods worship required more of him, than of the ox; nor the Sabbath made for man, but for the ox, then shall the servants and ox's labour that day be alike faultless in either of them 
z Servants being created, redeemed and sanctified, are as highly indebted to the worship of God as their masters. Greenham of the Sabbath, pag. 163. . This of your Doctrine, which brings to my mind that of Hagur 
a Prov. 30 2, 3. , which I wish might be the confession of every one that hath been infected with this dotage: Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man: I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the Holy.  
Secondly, your reason is this:  
That the servant as touching bodily service incident to mankind, is in like degree of subjection to his master, as is the ox and ass.  
This is abhorring to Christian, to natural ears: no slave is so the masters.  
It fights with that Rule; Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye to them 
b Matth. 7. 12. , Mat. 7. 12. A perfect voluntary servitude between Christian and Christian can scarce be lawful to be exercised on the master's part, saith Amesius 
c Ames. de consci. l. 5. cap. 23. parag. 2. . Yet this placeth not man in the condition of a beast for subjection.  
It fights with that humanity and lenity which masters own to their servants, with whom they may not deal imperiously as with their cattles. Ephes. 6. 9  
It fights with that restraint given to servants to obey their masters in the Lord, which cannot be applied to beasts.  
It fights with that liberty the servant hath, in things unmeet and inexpedient, though lawful, humbly to use all means to prevent and avoid the commandment of that nature.  
It fights with that liberty the servant hath humbly to contend with his master 
d job 31. 13, 14. .  
It fights with that common honour both master and servant are equally estated in by creation 
e Vers. 15. ; Did not he that made the master in the womb, make him? And did not one fashion them in the womb?  
It fights with the eternal Law in the fifth Commandment, in which the master of the servant is required, that he be to his servant in his manners a brother, in his office a father 
f 2 King 5. 13. , things incompatible to bruit beasts and man. Command. 5. 2 King. 5.  
Thirdly, and howsoever the condition of a slave was harder than that of an ordinary servant, or one hired, yet our question hath been all this while of jewish servants, and so of Christian servants; now the jew in service might not be used as a slave or bond-servant, but as an hired servant, as in Levit. 25. 39, 40.  
The jew that was a servant, was still a brother in Religion, and so to be used in his service and labour; not so the ox.  
Fourthly, for the duty of subjects to their superiors, to clear the whole matter, these grounds I lay down:  
First, subjects are bound to obey their superiors only in those things in which themselves are subjected to their superiors, & in which the superiors themselves, are not contrary respect guiltiness hath somewhat of good in it, and is of God: and in this regard God can separate guilt from sin: But partly it followeth sin as that which floweth from out of sin, and is the desert and merit of punishment, and so it participates of the nature of sin, and is quid vitiosum, a thing vicious: and in this respect it cannot be separated from sin. This double consideration of guiltiness is intimated in Rom. 1. 32. We know the judgement of God, that they which commit such things, are worthy of death. This is the nature of guiltiness, but the form of sin can no way be separated from sin; and yet the sin be sin: that were a contradiction. The form of sin is in no respect good, that were likewise a contradiction.  
Thirdly, besides this, you say first; there are two things in every sin, the act and guilt, as the matter and form; yet in the same breath you tell of three things in every sin, the Act, the Anomy or unlawfulness, and the Gild.  
This for the application of your Schoole-termes.  
Fourthly, hence, you say, 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, and that is the masters, etc. what coherence is here? because guiltiness is, in your style, the form of sin, therefore his is the guiltiness whose is the transgression. Is guiltiness and transgression all one, and is not transgression the form of sin? This is then in your own sense, as much as to say, his is the sin, whose is the sin. A fair conclusion, but no marvel you were thus puzzled here, for your reasoning should thus have run from your own grounds: The Act wherewith the commandment of the Sabbath is violated is the servants, therefore the guilt is the servants; for whoso violates the Law, he is guilty; and thus not only the master that commands the work, but the servant that doth the work, violating the command of God, is guilty.  
What followeth in this section of yours, hath been partly answered already, and followeth to be answered below in its more proper place.    

CHAP. IX. Breerwood. Pag. 12, 13.  
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.  

Answer.  
First, this indeed is our just exception against your doctrine, that the commandment, though given chiefly to masters in those words of specification, authorising and appointing them not only to cease their labour by themselves, or any under them, but to cause them to cease, and to cause them to sanctify the day for outward conformity; yet is given also to, and imposed on son and daughter, man and maid: and when you ask for the express or implied precept, reaching them as servants, you have the same expressly in that clause, thy servant shall not work; and in that other, Thou shalt do no work, as hath been hitherto abundantly and unanswerably proved, and is of plain light to manifest itself. Therefore when you call the first clause of the commandment, thou shalt do no work, the clause of freemen; thereby implying, that the latter is of bondmen, ding the loss of things, according to that in Deut. 22. Thou shalt bring home thy brother's erring ox; and therefore a corporal work, pertaining to preserve the health of ones own body, doth not violate the Sabbath; as to eat, and such like, whereby the health of the body is preserved. So the jews fought, Macchab. 2. Elias traveled fleeing from jezabel; and the Disciples plucked the ears of Corn on the Sabbath, etc.  
This Schooleman saith, that the bodily works whereby man serveth man, of all other bodily labours are forbidden this day, and to the other the servant as well as the freeman is bound freely to apply himself. And that these works of servants do contrary the observance of the Sabbath, and hinder the application of the man that serves, to divine things.    

CHAP. X. Breerwood. Pag. 13, 14.  
WHereby may easily and clearly be discerned the difference betwixt the equity and wisdom of Almighty God in the constitution of the Law of the Sabaoth, obliging Parents, and Masters and owners, for the children, and servants and cattles that are merely under their powers; and the rashness and iniquity of wretched men interpreting the law as immediately and directly obliging the children and 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 juris sut 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 and 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 forbidden, 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, than 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, than 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.  

Answer.  
First, here begin your reasons; the first whereof is taken from the equity and wisdom of God: and it stands thus in brief; It was more equity and wisdom to impose the commandment on masters for their servants and children, rather than on the children and servants themselves, who are under their master's power and enforcement. Therefore what? You leave us to gather up the conclusion, for you may be ashamed indeed of the consequence, which is this; Therefore it is against God's wisdom and equity to impose it on servants and children also: it is more wisdom and equity to do the one, you say, is it therefore against wisdom and equity to do the other also? If the first be more equal and wise, the second joined to the first, is of equity and wisdom, and no rashness nor iniquity, as you lavishly term it. It is given to masters for their servants, you say, and rightly, is it therefore not intended to oblige servants also? We grant, it is more equity and wisdom to impose it chief on masters, that they ensnare not the servants, and that they provide that the worship of God and his religion may be kept a foot in the family, and all attend on God in the assemblies; insomuch that God will require of them, and the Church also, those that are under their charge: and not chief on the servants who have no authority over others, but are under the authority of another: but this hindereth not the imposing hereof on the servant also, who shall answer for his own soul to God, and cannot be excused by the command of his master.  
Secondly, but in your discourse diverse things suffer exception as most unsound, as; First, that they are merely under their master's power; this confuted before in Chap. 5.  
Secondly, that they are under their power for service only: which is most false; for in this fourth Commandment they are put under their power directive and coactive for duties of Religion. And this your position overthrows the power of Princes over their subjects in matters of Religion. A wicked doctrine.  
Thirdly, that they cannot justly perform any labour their masters forbidden. They may in case the master's life or livelihood be in manifest hazard, by obeying the master's prohibition, as in Abigaïls' case 
o 1 Sam. 25. 18, 19 . They may lift their neighbour out of a pit, or save him from some imminent danger or loss, though the master should forbid it.  
Fourthly, that they may not omit any labour which their master's command. They may omit the labour which will manifestly cripple them, and aught to do it by virtue of the sixth Commandment, Thou shalt not kill. And so that phrase of yours in pag. 9 l. 7. (overset with six days toil) if spoken as a thing lawful on the master's part to overset his servant, is sinful. Again, they may omit the labour that is against the commandment of an higher power, as Thomas Aquinas showeth in his Sums 22a. q. 104. art. 5.  
Fiftly, that servants are utterly void of power and liberty to obey the commandment of God, in resting on the Sabbath when their master bids them work.  
This is manifestly false: for,  
First, if they are not void of liberty to refuse works that will cripple them on any day, then much less are they not void of liberty to refuse such works on that day. They are not void of liberty to refuse such uncessant employments as will not give them leave to take breath, in as much as that will kill them. Now to work the seventh day too, is to have no time to take breath, as the phrase is in Exod. 23. 12. That the son of thy handmaid and the stranger may take breath. And so in the other cases forementioned.  
Secondly, they have power to refuse a thing unlawful: but the servants work that day is a thing unlawful: for it is forbidden, as yourself acknowledges.  
Thirdly, they are here for this day restored to freedom, by this that the Lord commands the master not to work them.  
Fourthly, they have no power to sell themselves from God's solemn worship and service, and such a bargain is void, if it were made, ipso facto, nor did ever the Law of nations so bind the servant to his master, and make him so to be his masters.  
Fifthly, if the master bid the servant do any thing which is either contrary to piety, or repugnant to a servants duty, he is not bound to obey 
p Si herus jubeat servum aliquid facere, quod aut pietati contrarium, aut à servili officio alienum sit, non tenetur parere; quia dominus non debuit talia imperare: rectè igitur Hieronymus hanc exceptionem apposuit, per omnia; nimirum, (inquit ille) in quibus dominus carnis, Domino spiritus contraria non imperat. Davenant in Col. c. 3. v. 2●. , because the master ought not to command such things. Rightly therefore S. Hierom annexed this exception to the Apostles (In all things) to wit (saith he) in which the master according to the flesh, doth not command things contrary to the master of our spirit. Now these commands of the master are of this nature, and where the master ought not to command, the servant is not bound to obey; the master here, you confess, ought not to command, than the servant is not bound to obey; and thus, being a freeman, by your former doctrine the commandment is in force upon him, and he sinneth, if he work at his masters command this day.  
Thirdly, and as these grounds are wicked, which you interlace your argument withal, and therefore do not strengthen, but weaken your reason, so where your ground is good, your consequence is naught. This is indeed true which you say, that the master hath over his servant a coactive and corrective power. But what a miserable consequence is this? Master's have a coactive power; therefore there is no wisdom, justice or equity in the Almighty to give a commandment to a servant in obeying whereof he is liable to the stripes of a wicked master. Nay, God requires servants to undergo wrongful buffet patiently, 1 Pet. 2. 18, 19 and yet he is wise, and just, and equal in so doing.    

CHAP. XI. Breerwood. Pag 15.  
IT was therefore much more agreeable both to the wisdom and justice of Almighty God to impose the commandment rather on the Masters than on the servants, for thereby was prevented the disobedience of servants to their masters, and 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, and instead of that to ex●rcise 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.  

Answer.  
First, in this continuance of your former reason, partly you charge our doctrine, and partly you clear your own. First, you charge ours as occasioning servants disobedience to their masters, and servants punishment by their masters, and the breach of the Law of nations: but yours, as you say, prevents all this. We affirm, that the giving of the commandment of the Sabbath to servants as well as to masters, though to masters as those that should preserve this Law, if those under them would violate it, occasioneth none of these three evils: First, it occasioneth not any disobedience to masters; for at the most it giveth but power to the servant submissly to refuse the unlawful command of his master, and not to cast off subjection to his authority: to the first he is not bound, and therefore is not disobedient when he obeyeth not, but on the contrary, if he should yield to do the thing that is unlawful, he is a man pleaser. And to the second he yields himself in his submiss refusal, and acknowledgeth his power to the full, when he gives up himself that day to be commanded by him in things pertaining to the worship of God, in which thing alone God hath allowed the master the acting or execution of his power over his servant for that day. The reason hereof yourself suggests, when you say, the servant remains in his master's power no less this day, than any other, but to other and better ends, unto which ends, viz. respecting the worship of God, you confess the master's power, for the time, is determined in respect of the execution thereof. And who seethe not then, that if the execution of their power be bounded, the servant is not to fulfil the boundless and unlawful puttings forth of that power; here it is enough to be a patiented merely, and by no means an agent. So then the servant remaineth no less in the master's power, but to higher ends, but more free to God's service, while the master may not call him off by unjust exactions. And so fare is this from occasioning any disobedience, that it occasioneth, and properly effecteth in the servants heart a conscionable, and produceth in his life an entire and singlehearted obedience to his master as to the Lord. Inasmuch as they are hereby brought to the house of God where they learn all duty to God and man, though their master should be wicked, and so return to their masters fruitful, faithful and conscionable serving them, not with eye-service, but with all uprightness, to which the fear of God will bind them. But the unfaithful to God will be unfaithful to man. Oh the wisdom of God that provides for particular men and societies by this his Law, better than they could or would for themselves. Secondly, this occasioneth not any punishment wilfully incurred, if then it come, it may patiently, yea, joyfully be borne; for this is thankworthy with God 
q 1 Pet. 2. 18. 19 . But we see by experience, that as religious observing the duties of the Sabbath maketh one faithful in his Calling all the week; and as fidelity is in itself amiable, and to the master profitable, so many evil and covetous masters will willingly choose such servants, & give them willingly that liberty on the Sabbath, which themselves care not for, nor fear sinfully to forgo. Moreover, if any master should bestow blows on his servant for going to Church, when his master on the Sabbath commands him to the works of his calling; this very precept requireth the Magistrate to relieve the servant against the injury of a wicked master, when it giveth the Magistrate charge to see the Sabbath kept by all within his gate, and the supreme Magistrate to punish the inferior Magistrates neglects, or injust impositions, as we see in Nehemiah, who contended with the Nobles for profaning the Sabbath by unjust impositions of work upon inferiors. And so you see also the justice and equity of God in providing for the servant both in soul and body.  
Thirdly, for the Law of Nations, if you take it strictly and properly, it is simply and universally a positive Law, as saith john de Salas 
r Ius gentium est simpliciter & universè jus positivun. joh. de Salas tract. de. leg. q. 91. disp. 2. sect. 3. , and is thus described by Zuarez, it is the common Law of all Nations, not by instinct of nature alone, but constituted and ordained by their use 
s Et jus common omnium gentium non instinctu solius naturae sed usu earum constitu●um. Zuarez de leg. l. 2. c. 19 . It is that which all Nation's wel-ordered, do use: for use requiring, and humane necessities, Nations of men have ordained to themselves certain Rites or Laws. Of this sort of Laws these examples are reckoned up by Isidore 
t Ius Gentium est sedium occupatio, aedificatio, munitio, bella, captivitates, servitutes, postliminia, foedera pacis, induciae, legatorum non violandorum religio, connubia inter alienigenas probibita. Isid. Orig. l. 5. c. 6. , first, possessions, or the taking up of our abodes; secondly, building; thirdly, munition; fourthly, wars; fifthly, captivity; sixthly, servitude; seventhly, recovery of possessions lost, or alienated unlawfully; eighthly, covenants of peace; ninthly, truces; tenthly, the care not to violate ambassadors; eleventhly, marriages forbidden with them of another Nation. Now that the imposing of this commandment of the Sabbath on servants also should occasion the breach of the Law of Nations is a mere pretence: for the Law of Nations could never charge servants with such a subjection as should cross and cast out the worship of God, so that the servant should be so obliged to his master, that of conscience and necessity the servant of a wicked master must be left in a condition, wherein he should never have power to frequent the solemn worship of God, as will of necessity follow, if he be always, absolutely, as you teach, his masters. Show me whether ever the Nations generally, nay, ever any one Nation well ordered, gave such a Law? If no such Law ordained, it is no way of the Law of Nations: if not ordained, it is much more absonant from Nature's instinct. I say, such a thing could never possibly be found among the Nations of men, it is so abhorring to Nature: but if men could so fare and so universally degenerate, yet this without all controversy determines this case: 
u Ius Gentium quum sit positivum, non potest derogare juri naturae. joh. de Salas tract. de leg. q. 91. disp. 2. sect. 5.  the Law of Nations being a positive Law and humane, though brought in by the custom of Nations, cannot, nor must derogate from a Law of Nature. Now the Law of Nature binds all men, even servants as servants to serve God solemnly on the times he shall call for their homage from them indispensably, as on this day he doth, and to this end to be vacant and free from bodily labours that are servile for that time. The Decalogue is the Law of Nature, it chargeth servants in the fourth and fifth Commandments; the duties there required servants stand bound unto, and to them first as the rules of the Law of Nature, to other duties after, under, and in reference to them, if any such be agreed upon, and constituted by the Nations: but if Nations should constitute any thing against any duty in the ten Commandments, it is not a Law: for that is no Law which is not just 
x Ius non est, quod non est justum & rectum▪ non lex sed faex: non lex, sed labes: non lex sed lis.  and right; it is perverseness, no Law: it is not Law, but lees, but strife, but a destroyer, but error, but tyranny, any thing rather than Law, as all the learned conclude. If you, or any can show such a Law, or rather lees of Nations, blessed be God in his wisdom, justice and equity for ever, who by his eternal Law freeth poor servants from such tyrannous exact▪ on.  
Secondly, as our doctrine is wine that comes of the pure grape, so yours is the poison of Dragons pressed from the vine of Sodom: for I affirm, that it produceth all the former evils: For this, That the servant is left, even the Sabbath day also merely in his master's power to be obedient to his commands for servile works; first, it would occasion rebellion in the servant through bitterness of soul arising from an unsupportable burden; secondly, and so from thence just punishment on the servant, if the master's strength can reach them to inflict it, or from superior Magistrates; and thirdly, evert the Law of Nations, by striking at the life of Religion and Societies in the first and fundamental society, viz. a family; and in one of the most necessary props of that society, viz. master and servant. From this likewise it will follow, that God shall be neglected by the servant, through neglect of holiness, and that the servant of an unjust master shall no way be provided for, in respect of his refreshing, no not so well as the ox or ass: for God will be the avenger of that injustice, his poor creature being mercilessly used, but for this, God, you say, provides, that the servant must of conscience obey, and so God's justice, wisdom, goodness, and the ends of giving the commandment in regard of the servant shall be impeached, and wholly frustrate.  
Thirdly and lastly, you overthrew your own Tenet: for if the execution of that power be bounded for that day, as you rightly teach, how is the servant to obey the unjust usage of their power? For if he have no power to command, the servant may refuse to obey, and must, both because in this respect the servant is made a freeman, and so under the obligation of God's command by your own confession; and 
y Quisque ex tharitate propria tenetur non amittere libertatem sine gravi causa. joh. de Sal. tract. de leg. q. 91. disp. 2. Sect. 5.  because every one of charity to himself is bound not to lose his liberty, without some weighty cause, but to enjoy and use it rather where he may be free 
z 1 Cor. 7. 21. ; and because the power the master in this case takes, he usurpeth, nor is it of God, but is turned directly against him. I say, therefore if the master's power be determined, the servant is freed; but if he have power, how is it notwithstanding herein determined? Again, if the master must not only discharge the servant of work, but in stead thereof charge him to the exercises of holiness; the servant must needs in obeying his masters sinful command of working, flee off from his charge and power, to charge him at that time of his so labouring, in the duties of holiness, seeing no man can do two things (chief of this nature) at once.    

CHAP. 12. Breerwood. Pag. 15, 16, 17.  
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 servants 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 Charybdit, standeth perplexed and 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 than men; and worse to disobey him that can cast both body and soul into hell, than 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 evidence and enforcement of reason, that it should be so.  

Answer.  
First, here I have to say against both the manner and the main of your arguing: For the manner; first, you play the Sophister egregiously, the question is, whether it be given only to masters, and not to servants? And you take the rise of your reasoning from hence, that the commandment (according to our opinion) is given to servants only, and not to masters; and therefore you talk (that you might put a gloss upon your reasoning, and make the contrary appear the more foul, of the commandment of the servants cessation, not touching the master. The commandment given to themselves, not to their masters? This is mere cavilling: for who ever thought or dreamt, save yourself, much less held, that the commandment was not given to their masters, though it were given to the servants also. Again, you seem to promise the servant liberty, but indeed make him the bondslave to his masters unlawful commands: and while you would free him from blows of an injurious master, you free him (if it may be called freedom) from the service of God, which is perfect freedom.  
Secondly, for the main of your reason, it is thus: to give the commandment to servants also, is against the goodness of God; for it casts the servant upon stripes or sin: I answer: Doth the commandment cast any upon sin? If it any way provoke, or revive sin, it is by accident, because a spiritual, just, and good Law meets with a carnal heart, sold under sin 
a Rom. 7. 11, 12. . Sin taketh occasion by the commandment the commandment doth not cause sin. Had you had Paul's spirit, you would have justified the Law, and laid load upon the flesh and corrupt nature as out of measure sinful, and have advised all youth to cleanse their ways by taking heed thereto according to God's word 
b Psal. 119. 9 : and not go about to fill green heads with crotchets. Yea, but if they sinne not, but obey, stripes attend them, and this is against the mercy of God. Indeed? Is this your stumbling block? It is then against his goodness that Hagar 
c Gen. 16. 6, 9  should return to her Mistress and submit herself. It is against his pity, that the Apostle from God's spirit should require servants to suffer buffet that come undeserved, 1 Pet. 2. 19 It is against goodness to be happy; for blessed are ye (saith Christ) when ye suffer despiteful usage for righteousness sake 
d Mat. 5. 11, 12. . It is against goodness, that any man should be, or do good, inasmuch as some wicked men will persecute a man for that good. Why should the pitiful God require that which will cast us on the wheel, greediron, rack, fire and faggot, and what not that is of torment and torture? Oh devilish, earthly and sensual reasoning. This is fare from our Saviour's Doctrine and Spirit, the King of Zion, meek and having salvation, who bids us 
e Luk. 14. 26, 27,  take up our cross daily, and hate father and mother, and our own lives, as ever we mean to be worthy of him, and find life to life eternal. Such sufferings are to God's glory, and to our glory. Our Saviour premeditating of his sufferings, said, Father, glorify thy Name; that is, saith chrysostom 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. in joh. 12. 28. , Lead me now to the Cross: the Cross he calleth, glory, saith Ammonius 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ammonius. . Glorify thy son; that is, do not forbid him now hastening to death, assent to thy son herein for the profit of all, saith cyril 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyril. in joh. . We have an excellent Chapter in Lactantius his Institutions answering this sensual argument upon another occasion, for the poverty and afflictions and unjust persecutions of the Church, and the prosperity of Idolaters and Heathen might seem to prove the worship of God to be vain, and the Rites of gods or idols to be true, because their worshippers enjoyed brought. Therefore that Star in the firmament of your reasoning (whose condition is yet honest and lawful) shooteth and falleth.  
Yea, but you say, the point you stand on, is not, how much better it is to obey God than man, but how the command, requiring obedience in a thing that will cast us into the hands of wicked men, can stand with the goodness of God. This is the point that all this while I have handled: read and see how.  
Fourthly, and for a recompense, when you talk so freely of mischiefs and inconveniences, free your Doctrine of them if you can. For if the servant must obey his masters unlawful commands of work on that day, I say, he cannot do it, but he falleth into mischief; for he is sold from God's service and the Covenant of God, (
p Esay 56. 6.  Every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, taketh hold of God's Covenant) if a master be wicked; and into inconvenience, for he hath no breathing time: he cannot leave it undone, but he falleth into stripes and sin at once, without any support from God or man.  
Therefore your Conclusion, that all is avoided by this your dream is most untrue, neither Scripture nor reason favoureth your opinion, and in this you suffer the just reproof of 
q 2 Pet. 2. 12. jude 8.  Peter and jude, you are one of the filthy dreamers. Lactantius saith of Plato, that because he talked much of one God that made the world, but nothing of Religion and his worship, that he dreamt, and knew not God 
r Somniaverat enim Deum non cognoverat. Lact. Instit. l. 5. c. 15. . How much more do you dream and know not God that talk of him to evert his worship?    

CHAP. XIII. Breerwood. Pag. 17, 18, 19  
ANd doth not the practice of holy governor's 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: and 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 Chaldee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is manifestly known to be the same with the hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but fare more usual in the Chaldee 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 servilo 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 too; 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 wisely: 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? 10. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rendered thus by our Translators; Blessed art thou, O Land, when thy King is the son of Nobles: which in truth cannot be understood of freemen, but of men nobly descended and educated. All things considered, I question much, whether in the old Testament there be any thing to force us to understand it at all of freemen, as opposed to servants. But if it were so that the word had such a signification, yet seeing it is neither the only, nor the proper signification of the word, it must of necessity in that place of Nehemiah not be taken in your large sense, but in that true and restrained sense, for chief Rulers and Princes, that had authority over householders and others that kept servants.   

CHAP. XIV. Breerwood. Pag. 18, 19  
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and is it the servants work whereabout 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 
Isai. 58. 13.  that is forbidden, about the profaning of the Sabaoth, that which in the law was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy work is there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy 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) those 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 and 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 fare 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 servants 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, and instrumental agents.  

Answer.  
Let the reader remember, that you here yield, that if the commandment be imposed on servants, than they sin in working this day at their master's command. Now this hitherto hath been proved, and all plainly answered that may seem to make against it: and so I proceed.  
First, the work forbidden is; First, service, which is permitted on the six days; Six days shalt thou serve. Secondly, servile work, in which, and about which the messenger is employed; so the notation of the word in the commandment which you cite doth properly signify. Thirdly, all thy work: as opposed to works of sanctification, that is, of piety and mercy properly, though they be not servile work properly so called, or mechanical, as the study and exercise of the Liberal Arts; for these concern natural and civil things, and look not immediately to the worship of God, nor the unavoidable necessities of man. It is apparent then, that servile works, or works of ministry about our callings, and so servants work, is in a special manner prohibited. Now then take your own argument. The work permitted on the six days, is prohibited the seventh; the in sense with the middle word, with which it is the self same in sound. If the first, than it is opposed to all that duty of the Sabbath which consists in the immediate honour of God, done with the full complacency of hart therein, and the honourable mention of it in our words and discourse, as is clear in the Text to him that duly weigheth it. Now say, Is not the servants contained in this word (thy pleasure) as that which is no duty of God's worship, public or private? If the second, than it is not all that is forbidden (and so your argument falls; but rather concerns (as many learned and conscionable Divines deliver our works of recreation, or sports which we find out, though at other times lawful, which take off the heart from holy duties; for God hath found us another recreation; chiefly on that day, if any will be merry, let him sing Psalms (as in Ps. 92. The Title compared with the Psalm) & would have the Sabbaths duties our delight.  
Fourthly, Now whereas you lay this for a ground, that the election of man's will is the proper form of actual sin, I wonder how you should so mistake, but that Divinity was not your covenanted Wife, but only your Concubine, which for a turn you use, and in the use you ravish. Ataxy or irregularity is the proper form of sin actual, be the Ataxy in thoughts, in desires, in deeds, or in words. Moreover, election of the will is an act, and good, and therefore by no means the form of sin: and if you say, you speak not of election, but this election, namely, the unruly and inordinate election; tell me, is the election or the unruliness the form of sin; unruliness doubtless, which informeth both the election that is sinful, and the action that is sinful. And whereas you say, that outward unlawful actions are but expressions of sin, and not sin properly; if they be unlawful actions, they be sinful actions properly so called, for you yielded before, according to the truth of Scripture, and reason (pag. 12.) that sin formally is nothing else but unlawfulness: unless you will say, that sin formally is not sin properly: A proper position.  
For your reason whereby you would maintain this (that sin hath her residence and inhesion in the soul itself, and passeth forth of it, the actions outward carry only the tincture of sin, therefore they are not sin) I reply: If they carry the tincture of sin, then are they sinful. Again, are they died with sin, and yet hath sin no inhesion nor residence in them. This is strange: and for the residence of sin, it is not in the soul alone: 
a Peccat um est in ●bjecto occasion ●liter, in intellectu originaliter, in voluntate formaliter, in membris quoad usum.  Saint Paul saith, the law of sin is in our members, Rom. 7. 23. and we know sin cometh by propagation, but the soul is not propagated, only the body cometh, and is traduced from the parents, I would know where, in this propagation, sin hath its inhesion, and whether an unfitness, and perverseness fight with the rightness and aptness God approveth, be not traduced, and do not naturally stick in the very bodily faculties?  
And when you say sin only consisteth in the exorbitancy of the will, it is most false; sounder philosophy refelleth this, for Aristotle 
b Arist. lib. 3. Ethic. c. 1.  excuseth not from a fault, the things that are offended in, or done amiss against ones will through ignorance: and Divinity teacheth, that errors in judgement and ignorances 
c Ignorantia exc●sat, non a toto sed à tanto.  (when it is of things which of duty we should know) are sins, that the want of original righteousness, and the defects of graces are sin. And Thomas ᵈ saith, that so is every habit, and Act deprived of due order. The habit also of sin is first in the understanding, because all sin cometh from error which is in the understanding; consider it also in its absolute act without working with the will, so sin is firstin it. Upon such rotten props, what building can be reared? Yet let us take notice of your reasoning for further satisfaction to all, and the utter subversion of this new learning. It stands thus.  
The minister of another man's sin, being but the minister of another's exorbitant will, no further sinneth, than his own will concurreth thereunto.  
The servant doing his master's work on the Sabbath, not of election, but in obedience to his master, is but the minister of another's exorbitant will, and his own will no way concurreth therewith; therefore, so doing he sinneth not. instrument in the works of his Master and conferreth also will: I answer; he conferreth will indeed 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 an yielding of his will; and th' 〈…〉 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, and so being a sinful work, the servant and the mastster 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 masters commandemet, but the master transgresseth his, in disobeying God's commandment, touching his servants ceasing from that labour.   

Answer.  
First, why should we fear to say, the eye beholding vanity sinneth, and so of the tongue lose to blaspheme, slander, and lie? For, first, they move irregularly; secondly, they are the weapons of sin; thirdly, in them sin is finished, to the bringing forth of death both on body and soul; fourthly, these are the sins of both body and soul, and not of either apart; fifthly, the sin is made greater by the outward acting, in respect of the extent thereof, it having now invaded the body, and not only possessed the soul: so that there is filthiness of flesh, aswell as of the spirit, 2 Cor. 7. 1. and in respect of the damage it bringeth to others, either by way of scandal and offence, or by some real discommodity, as slaughter, defamation, with the like: sixthly▪ and hence it is, that certain punishments are rightly inflicted for the outward acting of some sin, which never could have place for the inward sin alone, as divorce is rightly inflicted for the act of adultery, that cannot be so for the intent of it. And thus the Scripture chargeth the members of the body, eyes full of adultery 
f 2 Pet▪ 2. 14. , the tongue is a world of wickedness 
g jam. 3. 6. , Rivers of water run down mine eyes because they (that is, mine eyes) keep not thy Law 
h Psa. 119. 136. . Your hands are full of blood 
i Esay 1. ●5. . I doubt not but the Scripture speaketh more exactly than you. You would be thought to speak properly when you say, These works are the sins of the dissolute mind: but neither Philosophy nor Divinity will admit it: for we may not say, The will sinneth, the body sinneth: but thus, The man sinneth. For actions are spoken, and are the acts of the subject persons 
k Actiones sunt suppositorum. : it is not a proper speech to say, The body sleepeth, but, The man sleepeth: The soul understandeth, but, The man. And the Scripture phrase inclineth more to this, The eye sinneth; than this, the will sinneth. For that saying, The soul that sinneth shall die, Ezek. 18. is meant thus, the person or man that sinneth; as in that phrase, so many souls went down into Egypt, Genes. 46. 26. Now from this it followeth▪ that not only in lying the tongue is abused, as the senseless creature is abused by a sinner, but (inasmuch as the body and soul are but one man, and make one person whose are the a●●ious and works good or bad) the body and members thereof have their share in the very sin, in the irregularity, filth, and guilt of it, and so shall find it by the punishment hereafter, and do fine it by the punishment that seizeth on the body here: and though the members be instruments of the soul, yet not such as can be separated from the man; for the body and soul are essential parts of man.  
Secondly, and for objecting, first, I would retort upon you your own argument: if the natural instrument, that in your opinion sinneth not, (as the tongue lying, lieth not, a sottish speech) yet it is charged with sin in the Scripture, it is punished for sin here, and hereafter, and is polluted with sin: then how much more is the voluntary instrument charged, polluted, and shall be punished, that cannot work in evil, but must needs bring will to the work, and election too in some sort.  
Thirdly, for your objection and solution: the objection is this, The servant is a voluntary instrument, not so the eye, or hand in the body; therefore from the hand to the servant will not hold. You solve and salve it thus; The servant conferreth will, but thus and thus; as a conditional will, a will obeying, not self-electing, a will to the work, not to the sin; therefore a natural instrument and such a voluntary are all one. This can never be made good; for by your own confession, such an instrument is in part voluntary, and so is not the natural instrument.  
Besides the main of your answer lieth in this, that to obey the master in his work, and not in his sin, is lawful; you yield then that if it be a sin; no conditional or halfe-election will serve to free him, that so chooseth it, from being a sinner. I urge not only the masters commanding of work that day is sin, but the work of the master that day is forbidden to be done, and so is sin. There the conditional, half, or under will, the obeying will of the servant (if he work) will not excuse him from sin. For nothing taketh away voluntariness from a deed, but absolute violence of compulsion, and a mere casualty that could not be foreseen or foreheeded. As if one be compelled to bend the knee (by force his knee bowed by others) before an Idol; or if one kill another by mere chance, Deut. 19 5, 6, 10.  
Fourthly, for that speech where you say, The work on the Sabbath hath sin annexed to it, it is not right; for the work on the Sabbath is sin, that circumstance of time, on the Sabbath, is the form of it. And this indeed must be divided between the master and the servant, as both their sins; the masters in commanding, the servants in working. But to divide sin from servile work on the Sabbath that they should not meet in the same person, neither master, nor servant, nor all the oxen in the Gate are able with Cart-ropes to do. I pray you note; the work (say you) is the servants, the sin is the masters. Why, the work is the sin, and is it not the servants then?    

CHAP. XVI. Breerwood. Pag. 21, to 28.  
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 servants obedience touching work on the Sabaoth, if my imagination be so good as to find them, and my learning also to satisfy them. Object. For first, it seems that servants are touching this commandment in better condition 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. Sol. Touching 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 fare otherwise) both that servants have a several obligation of their own, and that their transgression and sin is several, and 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 participates with the servant in that guiltiness. It may be a question, for if they be done merely by the servants 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 doing an unlawful act, and a sin of omission in the Master neglecting his due care, because by the precept of Almighty God the master is bound not only to 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 they do by obedience, are excused by their master's commandment; but what works are so excused? Are all? No; but briefly all those which while they are performed as by the Servants of men, they that do then 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 i● clear that all the other commandments, being indifferently imposed without either specification or exception of any person whatsoever, respect not any more one than another: and 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, than in the tables of stone, all of them forbidding those things that by their property and nature, or (as the Schoolmen say) exsuogenere, 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 exsuogenere, 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 seventh 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 seventh 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 
Exod. 31. 13. Ezek. 20. 12. 30.  same nature: yet it did not so, but was given to the Israelites, to be a special mark of their separation 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 Patriarches before it was pronounced in mount Sinai: But if it had been a law of nature herself, and so had obliged all the Patriarches; 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, and chief theirs, which first translated the celebration of that day, being the seventh, 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 than man. And there is no proportion betwixt the duties which they own as servants to their masters according to the flesh: & which they own 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, and preserver, and redeemer, and ludge of body and soul; sin therefore they may not, if their Masters command them, because God hath forbidden them (nor 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 be 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 passive 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 were given more to servants than to others▪ and crosseth your former words, where you say, their labour is forbidden: for if they labour, is it not their labour, and so on the contrary? Or to the words (directly and immediately?) you yield then, that servants labour is forbidden indirectly and immediately. The truth is, that which is nakedly forbidden, is directly forbidden: and that which is immediately forbidden, is sinful to be done, though mediately: mediately or immediately takes not away the edge of the precept, or power of the commander.  
Thirdly, you say, The other commandments were imposed without specification or exception of any person whatsoever, and therefore hold all men under an equal obligation; but this not so. Answ. What arguing is this? This commandment is with specification, and the servant is specified, and his work of service to his master on the Sabbath specified and prohibited, therefore it bindeth him not, it is not his sin. Nay, the specification maketh it the more his sin, and God provided by this enumeration of the persons, (as all have and will agree, unless any should use your false glass) that this rest might by no means be violated. Master Attersoll 
* Upon Numb. chap. 28. vers. 11, 12, 13. p. 1142.  saw in this enumeration not a freeing of the servants and subjects from the obligation, because a charge is laid on the Governors to see that others keep the day: but a reason to persuade the inferior the more cheerfully to keep it: thus he saith; The charge is laid on Governors, that inferiors might yield cheerfully to Gods will, considering how straight a charge God hath given to all Governors. And that he meant by God's will, the commandment here imposed upon, and binding servants from doing their master's work, though commanded, is apparent by his words in the same place, which run thus: Many fathers urge their children, many masters command their servants to go about their own business, and send them from place to place at that time, when they should attend to the holy Commandment of the Lord, whereas both of them might well and lawfully reply to their fathers and masters, and say with Christ our Saviour, Luk. 2. 49. Witted ye not that I must be about my Father's business?  
That word (exception) is venomous, as if some persons were excepted by that specification of persons in the fourth Commandment: these are cankered words and evil that will quickly corrupt good manners. Therefore Christian Reader, I give thee this note as an Antidote; and that it may be the more strong to expel poison, know that the specification of persons in a precept negative, cannot be an exception of those parties from under that precept, if specified in the prohibition, not excepted. And for the equal obligation that holds all men alike under the other Commandments, it is the same also in this: for if you say the commandment more obligeth Governors, I answer; It doth so in respect of their political observing of the command, as they are Governors, and so ought to see this Law kept, and not violated: and thus they are bound more, and otherwise than other men to every of the other nine Commandments. For the Magistrate is the keeper, or preserver of both 
m Custos utriusque tabulae.  Tables of the Law. But in respect of their personal observance hereof, it is equally charged on them, as on the servant and subject: and so it is also in the rest of the precepts.  
Fourthly, you say, this commandment is of a different sort from others, therefore it otherwise obligeth, and you give three things to show this difference; first, the nature of it; secondly, the matter prohibited; thirdly, the command itself.  
First, for the nature of this Law, you say, It is a Law engraven in the Tables of stone, but not on the Tables of men's heart, nor any Law of nature. You make this distinction, that there are revealed Laws in the Decalogue which are not the secret Laws of Nature, the Laws engraven in stone by the singer of God, were not all of them the Laws of Nature.  
Against this I press you with reasons, authorities, and of the other Commandments in the nature and property of the things, as you say, and so you give three instances; two of them have been already answered, namely, that the labour of the servant is wholly subject to another man's command, and that the commandment only forbiddeth the master his servants work. The third difference (which now we will, God willing, scan) is this, That the thing forbidden, viz. servile work, and so the servants work, is not evil materially,, and ex suo genere, as the matter of other commandments is, nor evil of its own nature, but only because it is prohibited, and therefore, you hold, it is no Law of nature.  
Here first consider how fare wide this is to your scope, and the question in hand: for what if the matter prohibited be evil but only by prohibition; would not that prohibition make it sinful of lawful, and that to the servant? I'll give you an instance in a precept ceremonial: God commanded that no leaven should be in their houses during the Feast of unleavened bread: suppose the master should command his servant to make in those day's leavened bread, if the servant did it, the servant sinned as well as his master.  
Secondly, the proposition itself is faulty: for the matter of the second Commandment is not evil materially, any more than the matter of the fourth, to make an image or likeness of any thing in heaven, earth, or sea, is not evil, but only circumstantially, as to make it to bow to it. If you say, to make it to bow to it, is the matter of the Commandment: (as indeed it is) than I say, to work on the Sabbath, is the matter of this Commandment; and as to make an image to bow to it, is evil materially, and of its own nature, so to spend (the Sabbath I say not, that seventh day, but) the Sabbath, the consecrated time of God's worship in our labour, is evil materially. And therefore the master's command cannot excuse the servants work that day. And now hence I further reason against you thus: Though the second Commandment forbidden to make images, which is not evil in itself, but only with this circumstance added, to make them to bow to them; yet he that maketh them for another that he knoweth will worship them, breaketh the second Commandment; therefore in this Commandment, the servant that worketh at his master's commandment, whom he knoweth to abuse his labour in this kind, breaketh this Commandment. Now by your Rule, the servant commanded to make an image, which he knoweth his master would abuse to worship it, aught to make it, because to make a likeness or image is not simply evil.  
Thirdly, when you hold, that the Law of Nature is of those things only that are evil by their property and nature, this passage received thrusts out the second commandment from being a Law of Nature, according to your exposition of a thing that hath in it native illness: for to make an image (setting aside the circumstance) to bow to it, is no more evil, than for a servant to work, setting aside this circumstance (on the Sabbath.) This your sly arguing savours of Popery, which hath thrust out the second Commandment as a positive and ceremonial Law upon the same grounds.  
And when you say, that the prohibition of other things is caused by their native illness; if you mean, their illness was before the Law (not understanding by Law, the promulgation thereof, but the Law of Nature written in the heart of man, inasmuch as this Law is the express righteousness of God) it is a blasphemous Tenet, for hereby transgression shall be where there is no Law, and a chief evil, a summum malum, as well as a chief good, or an absolute goodness out of God, which this illness swerveth from. For my part, I cannot tell how any thing should be evil natively, but evil, because it is defective of good, which good perfecting man is the Law of righteousness. If by prohibition, you mean the promulgation of the Law, than I say, that this maketh not the thing prohibited unlawful, but only makes the sin the greater in them that yet offend, after God by lively voice hath renewed those obliterated precepts, offuscated with sin in the heart of man.  
Thirdly, the Commandment itself in these five things (you say) is merely Ceremonial, brought in by positive Law; and is not of the Law of Nature; first, to observe one day in seven; secondly, to observe a certain day of that number; thirdly, to observe the seventh in the rank; fourthly, to observe a whole day by the revolution of the Sun; fifthly, to observe it with severe exactness of restraining all work. This you essay to prove, first, by a place of Scripture; secondly, by the example of the Patriarches; and thirdly, by the absurdity that else will follow.  
This matter shall be more largely discussed, because it will much clear the Doctrine of the Sabbath; for now you strike at the root of it, and would lay Religion on the ground: but your own staff will break your back, which you give by the handle into our hands. This you yield, that the secret instinct of nature hath taught all men, even the profanest Gentiles, that some time is to be set apart, and dedicated to the solemn worship of God, as set times to be spent in sacrifice and devotion. Now go on; this instinct is the Law written in their hearts; therefore the Sabbath is a Law of Nature. But did this instinct of Nature guide them to your former five particulars about the time of worship? If it did, and that the shards hereof are found among the Gentiles, you cannot, nor any other for you conclude (unless you will play the madmen with reason) that every of them hath less than morality and perpetuity in it. It is true, the Gentiles a thousand ways depraved the use of the Sabbath, by keeping holiday to their Idols, saith Aretius 
y Aret. problem. loc. 55. de Sabb. obser.  they also wrested the name to a wanton and ridiculous signification, in which notwithstanding there hath remained some footsteps of the ancient original, to which serò tandem Gentes redire debuerunt, at length the Gentiles, though late, aught to return. To omit their depravations, see in them the footsteps of every particular.  
First, the Gentiles set apart certain and constant days not movable and wand'ring.  
Macrobius saith, there are four kinds of public holidays (Feriarum, that is, days vacant from pleading and labour) Stative, Conceptive, Imperative, and nundinative: and the Stative are common to all the people on certain and set days, and months, and noted with standing observations in their Calendars.  
Secondly, they observed a certain day of seven, and particularly the seventh.  
Hesiod saith 
z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesiod. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the seventh day is a holiday. Lampridius telleth of Alexander Severus, that on the seventh day, when he was in the City, he went up to the Capitol, and frequented the Temple. Homer saith, the seventh day is holy, and was the day in which all things were perfected, and on which we depart from the banks of Hell.  
Callimachus saith the like, and that it is the birthday, chief and perfect 
a Clemens Alexandr. stromat. l. 5. .  
Clemens Alexandrinus showeth 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. l. 5. storm. , that not only the Hebrews, but the Greeks' also knew the seventh day holy. And Eusebius 
c Euseb. de prepar. Evang. l. 13. c. 7.  affirmeth, that almost all as well Philosophers as Poets knew, that the seventh day was more sacred. And Philo 
d Philo. lib. 2. de vita Mosis.  the jew saith, Who doth not honour that sacred day, which returneth every week.  
The seventh day holidays were wont to be granted to children in Schools among them 
e Lucianus in Pseudo logista. .  
Certain of the Ethnic Doctors were wont only to dispute on the Sabbaths 
f Awl Gell. l. 13. c. 2. Sueton. Lib. 3. .  
Seneca 
g Senec. ep. 95.  in his 95. Epistle showing that exhortations are not enough, but we need obliging precepts, yea, the decrees of wisdom; bee reckoneth up the Sabbath, as the festival day for Religion; but condemneth their manner of observing it, when he saith; Let us forbid any one to light a candle on the Sabbaths: for neither do the gods want light, and men themselves are not delighted with smoke; he worshippeth God who knoweth him. 
h Macrob. Saturn. l. 1. c. 7.  Macrobius showeth, that Saturn (of whom is the name of Saturday) was honoured with Candles lighted at his Altars, and wax-Tapers offered on his days.  
Aretius hath these words 
i Aret. problem. loc. de Sabbathi observ. ; The Greeks' and Latins call the Sabbath, The day of rest, which the Gentiles  
But before I pass over this point, I would take off the exceptions of one Franciscus Gomarus 
s Gomarus de Investigat. sententiae & originis sabbati. cap. 4. pag. 42.  a German, who pleads, that these allegations for the seventh day's celebrity observed among the Gentiles are insufficient, and the consequence thence drawn to prove this to have aught of the Law of Nature in it, infirm. The insufficiency of allegations out of the Poets he would evince from this, that those Poet's talk, as the proverb is, of Garlic, but we speak of Onions; and though Clemens Alexandrinus & Eusebius allege them, yet for this cause they deserve little credit, because they speak of the seventh, but the Poets only of a seventh. I answer, that they must needs avail, and be of force to any that hath reason: for (be it they spoke not of that seventh from the Creation, yet) that they speak of the celebrity of a seventh, maketh wholly and sufficiently to prove, that they were guided to▪ a seventh; and if they knew not the seventh through iniquity and vanity, that can no more disproove the festivity of the seventh to be from the beginning, and reach to all, than the failings in many specialties of the first, and second, and third, and other commandments, can disproove their engraving on the heart of man, as Laws of Nature: and on the other side, it prooveth as sufficiently that this commandment is a Law of Nature (so fare as it is expressed in the Decalogue,) as the relics of the other precepts in the hearts of Gentiles, prove them to be Laws of Nature, and therefore his exception in special against that authority out of Hesiod, if it should be understood of every seventh day, taking the calculation from the first day of the month, doth no way supplant our intended purpose. Well hath a learned Bishop 
t Patterne of Catech. Doctr. pag. 124.  of our Church observed, that sufficient is found in the heart of the Gentiles, to their condemnation, for breaking the Law of the fourth commandment, they knew that numerus septenarius est Deo gratissimus, and it was numerus quietis; and thence they might have gathered, that God would have his rest that day: and so the seventh day after birth they kept exequiae, and the seventh day after death, the Funeral. Note also that Gomarus passeth over those sayings, brought by Clemens and Eusebius out of Homer and Callimachus untouched, because they are not found in their writings now extant; which proveth the weakness of this cause.  
That quotation out of Philo judaeus, he thinketh he hath taken off by that place of the same Author, in his book of the Decalogue, whereby (he saith) it is evident, that Philo spoke not properly, but only by similitude of the number of seven, because he thus expounds himself in that place; The fourth commandment (saith he) commands the seventh day: commanding it to be spent holily and godly. This certain cities celebrate every month, as a Festival, beginning their reckoning from the New Moon: but to the jews every seventh day is holy. I answer; First, it is a mere presumption of his to say, that here Philo expounds his meaning in the other place, for this is in his book of the decalogue, that in another book, viz. The second of the life of Moses: nor doth he make the least intimation of reference thither. Then this quotation, that he maketh the exposition of his meaning in the former place, cannot be; for here he speaketh only of some few cities, there in general terms, (who honoureth not that holy day?) Moreover, in another place 
u Philo de mundi opisicio.  he calleth, that very seventh day, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a general Festival to be observed of all people for ever. Lastly, if he had but perused Philo, or not perverted him wilfully, he might have seen his plain meaning, whose words (both for this purpose, and for the rest of servants, about which our dispute is) I set down, not mangled, but entire; and they are these: It admonisheth (saith he, meaning the Divine Law) it admonisheth all of duty: Barbarians, Grecians, inhabitants of main continents aswell as of Lands the Westerlings, the Easterlings, the Europeans, and the Asians, the whole habitable World, even to the uttermost coasts. For who doth not honour that holy day, returning every week, bringing remission of labour and holy vacations to the master of the family with his household; not only to freemen, but also to servants, yea moreover to the beasts under the yoke? and so forth.  
Again, he helpeth us to another authority out of losephus in his second book against Appain, who saith, Neither is there any city of the Grecians, or Barbarians, nor any Nation, to whom the custom of the seventh day, in which we rest, hath not come. A pregnant proof. But Gomarus saith, there are words foregoing which do end the controversy, namely these, Moreover the people do now much emulate our piety. Which words (saith he) do only show, that the observation of the Sabbath among the Gentiles, was only an imitation of the jews by Proselytes, and perchance many others. What? were all the Gentiles East and West, become Proselytes; or would all of them admit a mere ceremony? Some Nations besides Proselytes, admitted Circumcision: but did all the cities of Greeks and Barbarians admit thereof? And if they imitated their piety, could it be thought that they imitated it as theirs, and not rather as that which their natural light glimmeringly guided them unto; especially seeing the jews were naturally hated of all people.  
For his quotation out of Theodoret upon the 20. chap. of Ezekiel, to testify to his tenet, who saith, That in the observation of the Sabbath, the jews seemed to obtain a certain proper commonwealth; for no other Nation did observe this rest, and neither did Circumcision so distinguish them from others, as did the Sabbath. I answer: This cannot be understood of any kind of observation of the Sabbath, for then Theodoret must speak directly against all received testimonies of antiquity (which may not be thought) but of the true observing thereof in the solemn ritual worship of God, which being all public and solemnly used on that day, as the sanctification thereof, did as much more lively distinguish the jews, God's people; from the Heathen Idolaters, than did circumcision; as the whole Law doth more than any one part thereof.  
Thus we have made good the sufficiency of the quotations excepted against, we leave them therefore with the rest fore-alleaged to be cavilled at by the next that dares to attempt it.  
The infirmenesse of the consequence (saith Gomarus) is this, that if the observation of the Sabbath had prevailed among the Gontiles, yet from thence no such antiquity of the Sabbath may be evinced, but only thence appeareth the imitation of the jews by the Gentiles, as by Proselytes and others perhaps. I answer, the consequent is firm, for the former Heathen Authors have no reference to the jews, and the Gentiles derided the jewish Sabbaths, Lament. 1. 7.  
But suppose it came up among the Gentiles by imitation of the jews, yet this spreading of it fare and wide, prooveth the goodness of the consequence, that it is of the moral Law. For hence it sufficiently appears, that the institution of a set seventh day in the week is immutable, and not ceremonial and temporal; not proper to the jews only, but common to all, seeing nature apprehends it meet and necessary, that we often exercise the worship of God, and cannot but acknowledge (as we see in the inclination of the whole universe of men) that this weekly determination of a day is most convenient, and altogether absolute.  
Hitherto of the answer to your position, determining what is ceremonial in the fourth commandment. Your proof for the ceremony of it in those respects, is, first, taken from Texts of Scripture in Exod. 31. 13. and Ezek. 20. 12, 20. Hence you reason thus; That form of keeping Sabbath was given to the jews, as a special mark of their separation from Gentiles, and consecration to God; therefore it was merely ceremonial, and obliged not the Gentiles; which it had done, if it had been a Law of Nature.  
First, here your consequence is weak and fallacious: for every mark and sign of separation from others, and consecration to God, is not ceremonial. Baptism is such a mark between Persian and Heathens, yet no ceremony; so is the Sacrament of the Lords supper. Such was the Sabbath then, and is at this day.  
Neither doth every mark of separation and sanctification, oblige only those that have that mark: for the duty was no less necessary to men before the Law given, than after, and examples are not wanting of the Majesty of God himself 
g Gen. 2. 2. & 7. 4. & 8. 10, 12. Exod. 16. 6. , of Noah, and of the Israelites before the Law, by whom the days were gathered into weeks, which showeth, that the observation of the Sabbath was not unknown.  
Lastly, you urge us with an absurdity that will follow on this doctrine, that if it be of Nature to keep the Sabbath, it bindeth us Christians to keep the seventh day Sabbath, and so the first changers of the day to the first day of the week sinned grievously. This argument is of no consequence: for the first day of the week is now the Lords Sabbath, as the seventh day from the Creation was then. And thus neither Law of Nature broken, nor sin incurred; and therefore all absurdity avoided: the first day of the week is also the seventh, though not that seventh day.  
This accommodation also of the fourth precept to the jews in the determination of the day maketh not the commandment ceremonial, nor yet the change of it to our Lord's day, no more than the fifth Commandment is made ceremonial by this promise, respecting Israel in Canaan, That thy days may be long in the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. And this change in the application of the precept by the Apostle, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live long on earth 
h Ephes. 6. 3. .  
It standing firm then, that the Commandment in every part thereof, as it is contained in the Decalogue, is moral, and of the Law of Nature, and the breach thereof a sin, your conclusion taketh place against you, namely, that the servant may not in any case work on the Sabbath at prohibited works (because it is sin) at the commandment of any master on earth: For it is better to obey God than man. To the Answer whereof I leave you, or others that in pride of spirit, and a spirit of contradiction dare to attempt it in your behalf. All that followeth in this part of your Discourse, seeing it is but by way of Recapitulation, by the former Answers is found to be of no force.   

CHAP. 17. Breerwood. Pag. 28, 29, 30.  
But there is another objection, for admit the servants, 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 substance and the quality, that is the work itself and 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, than 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 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 accidens, 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 I say, for the master doth not sin only in commanding his servant to work, but in working him, and so bringing his command into execution; which thing the servant knowing to be unlawful, must (that he may not partake therein) not only, not touch it with one of his fingers, but also persuade the contrary and modestly rebuke it. Again, he ought to attend on holy works, which directly will hinder that unlawful work, and to these is he bound as God's servant that day. Thirdly, by approving; and this the servant doth really, by his work, and by his example.  
Your second solution is found by this that hath been set down, to be vain and frivolous, the servant must refuse to sin in any kind. And his refusal in this kind is not against the Law of nations as we have heretofore showed, nor against his own covenant, for his covenant (though without limitations expressed) doth not exempt him from the service of his Prince and Country, the Prince may press him to the wars, much less from the service of his God, when his Lord and Saviour presseth him to his wars; as he doth in the day of assembling his army in holy beauty. It is therefore wicked and injurious to God, man, nations, laws and covenants, that you say, that the Servant standeth bound to his master in all bodily service, without any exception of the Sabbath more than other days. Your phrase you use of the Servants resisting, is your own; we teach the servant may refuse and must, all such works which God hath forbidden to be done that day; but not resist, no, he must acknowledge his master's authority, though not obey his unlawful commands, and be so fare from resisting, that he must suffer patiently the hard usage of an evil master, and endure stripes rather than offend God, in all, committing his cause to him that judgeth righteously.  
And for the servants more full direction in this thing, one case of Conscience I would here briefly decide, which is this, what works may servants do on the Sabbath, and in what are they under their master's command and bound to obey them? Answ. To conceive hereof plainly: There are four sorts of works lawful on the Sabbath: First, works of holiness. Secondly, works of mercy. Thirdly, works that are in their nature servile, yet do directly respect the present worship of God; as out travel to the places of God's worship: for these works become now holy works, and are not ours but God's works. Fourthly, works of common honesty, that is, works that make to the comely, decent and orderly performance of God's worship, and our carriage and behaviour therein. Such are the tolling of a bell for the calling of the Assembly, the comely and modest dress of the body, provided that it be not vain, curious, nor ask much time, but be thrust into the narrowest room that may be. The spreading of our Table, so that state be not taken up, and all things be prepared before as much as may be, with the like. By works of mercy, I mean, not only the necessary labours in the help of the sick, and of women in travel, and of beasts out of a pit, with the like; but also all those that are called works of necessity, which I rather call works of mercy, because they are therefore necessary, as they tend to the preservation of things, not from feared or suspected, but eminent and imminent and present danger; and the work itself must be done in mercy, not in covetousness or other respects. Now of this sort are these works, labour in provision of convenient food, tendance of cattles, fight for defence of our country being assailed, riding of posts on the affairs of the state in causes of present and imminent danger.  
In all these the master hath power to command, and so hath the superior over him that is under his charge, and the servant is bound to obey. The master may command him the works of mercy, and the works servile, that directly look to the worship of God, or to go with him to the Sermon though many miles off (if it cannot be had nearer hand) and as the master may take his horse and ride thither, his servant going on foot, so may he command his servant for this purpose to saddle his horse, as in 2 King. 4. 22, 23. The question of the Shunamites husband showeth, who to his wife desiring one of the Asses to be made ready, and a servant to be sent her, that she might go to the man of God, saith on this wise, Wherefore wilt thougo to him to day? it is neither now moon nor Sabbath. It was then their custom so to do on the Sabbath and new moon. In like manner, the master may enjoin the servant such works as tend to necessary provision of food, and tending of children in the family, etc.  
Yet here again some things seem to fight with the sanctification of the day: First, if the master shall strictly stand upon his state and distance, for if the familie-necessities in respect of young children should necessarily require the presence of some constantly at home, the master may not keep his servant hereby constantly from the public worship, but rather sometimes change turns with him. Much less may he desire such unnecessary superfluities as may cause absence from the Assemblies: for this is to feed thy carcase on the life blood of the souls of thy servants. Deal in all plainness of heart, and know thou hast to deal with God. The servant must be sure the work is unlawful before he offer to withdraw his obedience, but thou mayst sinne in that work in which thy servant sinneth not, because thou art bound to search more into the nature of thy necessities.  
Secondly, if the master set not his business in so wise and discreet an order, that without all unnecessary hindrances he and all his household may sanctify the day and keep it holy.  
Thirdly, if the master remember not that he is a God, and that both by communication of name and power, to provide for and see to the servants and his households rest, and therein respect that mercy which God would have shown to servants, yea, to cattles on that day.   

CHAP. XVIII. Breerwood. Pag. 30, 31, 32.  
Object. But yet one scruple remaineth, because every person that did any 
Exod. 31. 14, 15.  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. Sol. I answer, that the judicial commandment is to be understood of the same persons to whom the moral commandment was given; the commandment touching punishment of them, to whom the commandment touching 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 dye 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 abstain 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. Six days thou shalt do thy work, and the seventh day thou shalt rest, that 
Exod. 23 12.  thine Ox and thin● 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.  

Answer.  
First, that place is to be understood of the presumptuous offender as appeareth in Numb. 15. 35, 36. with that in vers. 30, 31. The soul that doth aught presumptuously, reproacheth the Lord, and shall be cut off. For if the sin were of ignorance, infirmity and error, he was bound to bring a sin-offering, vers. 27, 28. thus the jews understand that place in Exodus. Now the servants work at the master's command will not come under a wilful and presumptuous sin: yet that law showeth this truth, that men for breach of Sabbath shall be punished according to the nature of their offence, so shall he that foregoeth Gods to do his master's work. This is the true Answer, you merely trifle, and therefore the force of the objection lieth still upon you, and your Answer falls like an untimely fruit or rotten nut. And your hard cases (for they seem full of pity, and yet would have a servant to be in the condition of a beast) are mere conceits. And for that phrase of yours, saying, The servants may be compelled to work by men, speaking there of such work as the fourth commandment hath forbidden, doth contradict your former Tenet expressly, who say, that the master may not command his servant to work: may he not command him? and may he yet compel him? Good stuff I promise you.  
Secondly, in this place also seeing you offer to our thoughts Gods judicial Law, and so his judiciary proceeding, I urge you with the just hand of God's yengeance that lighteth oftentimes on children and servants working at the command of their parents and masters on that day. God punisheth none but those that offend less or more. But this ungodliness he hath punished from heaven. And all wise Christians will esteem more of one Demonstration of God's wrath, than of two hundred sophisticated Rhetorical Demonstrations of any Disputer in the world. At Kimstat a town in France, 
m job. si●col. l. 3. De mirac.  there lived in the year, 1559. a certain covetous woman, who was so greedy of gain, that she would not frequent the Church herself, nor suffer any of her family to do it, but continually toiled a bout drving and pilling of flax, and doing other household businesses: neither would she be reclaimed by her neighbours, who admonished and dissuaded her from such unseasonable works. One Sabbath day as they were thus busily occupied, fire seemed to issue out of the flax, without doing any hurt: The next Sabbath it took fire indeed, but was quickly extinct: Yet this wretch continued obstinate in her profaneness even the third Sabbath, when the flax again taking fire, could not be quenched till it burned her and two of her children to death, for though they were recovered out of the fire alive, yet the next day they all three died; and that which was much to be wondered at, a young infant in the cradle was taken out of the midst of the flame without any hurt. God we see, took vengeance on the children that wrought at the mother's commandment. Are there not strange punishments for the workers of iniquity 
n job 31. 3. ? Above fifty persons were consumed in the fire which burned the town of Fevertone in Devonshire, in the year 1598. where 400. dwelling houses were all at once on fire and consumed for their horrible profanation of the Lords day. Can any think that of those fifty, none were children and servants, whose work that day had been usually abused?  
Here also, Christian Reader, I thought it my part to lay before thy more serious consideration these notable and late examples of God's wrath from heaven against men's ungodliness on the Sabbath day. Blackesmith by trade, (he is yet alive, the Lord give him an heart to repent, and all the Town to learn by that hand of God) this woman was with her young child in her arms within her own gate looking on them: and so it was that while she looked on, one of the greatest ropes failed and broke, and the Pole fell down upon the pale that parteth their gate and the street, and the upper end of it with the fall, lapped over, and struck the child on the head in the mother's arms, and killed it. It was the edge of the weathercock that hit the child on the head, (mark it well) and cloven the skull, and it died the next day.  
It is time for thee Lord to work, for men have made void thy Law. Psal. 119. 126.  
The Lord is known by the judgement which he executeth: The wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Higgaion. Selah. Psal. 9 16.  
That place in Exo. 23. 12. which cometh in on the left side is abusively rendered by you when you read, that thy son and thy maid may be refreshed, whereas it is thus in the text, the son of thine handmaid: and when you say, it is manifest that the servants work is accounted the masters; seeing the rest from the master's work is the refreshing of the servant, is it not as manifest that it is the servants, when the rest is his refreshing? For by another rest▪ I am not refreshed, if I work: and what if in some respects it may be called the master's work, is it therefore no sin in the servant to do it? This is a begging of the question, and a shame in a professed Disputant.    

CHAP. XIX. Breerwood. Pag. 32, 33, 34.  
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 governor's, 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 whereby 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 commandments, 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. written by his own hand at the time when these things were in agitation: the copy being his first draught, and so very imperfect in many things, cannot be published as could be wished for the satisfaction of the Christian Reader. Therefore we must be contented here and there to give thee a little taste: and first in this particular you have it thus in his own words. Object. The word Melachah doth signify properly servile works, and is a choice word of purpose used in this Commandment.  
Sol. That the word signifieth servile works, I find some Divines so saying; but that by servile works they mean only toilsome and gainful works I deny. For they used to place servile works, over against works of piety. Now as by works of piety, they mean lesser, as well as greater works of religion to God: so by servile works, they mean as well lighter as toilsome works of labour for man. To deal plainly with you, I see no cause why Melachah should have any such special weight in signification: For though your conceit of it that it signifieth opes, as well as opus, might cast some colour to persuade that it might mean works of gain, yet that it should specially note works of toil, there is no colour. Nay me thinks, Magnaseh, is of a larger signification, and fits for toil, as signifying to work, cum energia. Thus the wicked are workers of iniquity, and Nabals cattles are called Magnasehu, & appellantur nomine operis, eò quod homo seipsum occupat in illorum acquisitione, and are called by the name of Work, because man busieth himself in getting them; and yet Pegnulah more fit than them both, it signifieth opus and op●ris merces, work and the reward of work; works of hands, Psal. 9 16. The work of the hireling. job 7. 2.  
It is likely that he that published this Treatise of Master Breerwoods', hath a perfect copy of a full answer. (For Master Breerwoods' provoked spirit, as he termeth it himself, would not have been allayed, without a satisfactory answer.) Fair dealing would have required, it should have been produced, and then I had saved this pains in answering: But then the Publisher had miss his aim, which was to traduce the Dead; who then being Dead, had yet spoken.  
Sixtly, that this interpretation is orthodox, and yours novel and adulterous; see how Divines and the Church●s of Christ have understood it.  
Our Church of England declareth her mind in the first part of the Homily of the place and time of Prayer; where the example of the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day is alleged: and those that prank, and prick, and paint, and point themselves to be gorgeous and gay, those that toyishly talk, are reckoned a sort of transgressors, worse than those that keep Markets and Fairs that day.  
Tertullian saith, 
q Non facies opus, quod? utique tuum. Arcam verò circumserre, neque quotidianum opus videri potest neque humanum, sed bonum & sacrosanctum, etc. Tertul. l. 2. contra Marcionem.  God forbade humane works, not divine. Thou shalt do no work, what work? namely thine own: but to carry above the Ark (that is, about the walls of jericho) can neither seem a daily work, nor an humane, but a good and holy work; and therefore by the very Commandment of God, divine.  
Master Greenham, 
r Greenh. Treatise of the Sabbath. As we deny Church feasts, as imitations of the Heathen; so we deny Holiday plays as remnants of ancient profaneness. pag. 169.  showeth excellently, that recreations, as shooting and the like, at other times lawful; and banquet, and the exercises for sick persons refreshing, if it be not in reading, singing, and holy conference; (for if they be sick, it is a time of praying, not of playing; and if they be well to play, are they not so to do these Heavenly and comfortable duties?) All these are unlawful to be used that day; neither, saith he, is the Sabbath only broken by profaneness, but also by idle works. Mayer 
s pag. 260.  upon the fourth Commandment saith, We must rest from worldly speeches and thoughts: small works which come not within the compass of religion, mercy or necessity must not be done on the Sabbath, saith Master Dod on the Commandments. 
t pag. 152.  Polyander, Rivet, Wallaeus and Thysius, say, 
u Synopsis purioris theol. ●●sp. 21. pag. 261.  That it is moral and engrafted in nature, that the whole mind be taken off from other cares on the Sabbath, and the whole day bestowed in the duties moral? or if so, how should the jews put a difference between the one and the other? for you will needs have ceremonial precepts in the body of the fourth Commandment. And why bring you in, the Instance of our blessed Saviour who was a jew, and bound to the law as given to the jews, and kept the ceremonial as well as the moral law?  
Secondly, Come, come, you are plunged, let me help you. In that our Saviour did allow and do many light and laborlesse works, in your Ashdodaean phrase (for we take your words till we come to examine the matter further) and yet by voluntary dispensation was bound to all the law, it is clear, that no ceremonial law or clause of any law in the old Testament forbade the works that he did on the Sabbath: and so your answer, that that command in Exod. 35. 3. was 
a If it were ceremonial, the equity nevertheless must bind Christians, although the sanction doth not constrain them. The equity of the Law teacheth us, we ought not to turn this liberty, to be servants of our wanton desires. Greenth. Treatise of the Sabbath, pag. 168. I add the equity of it showeth that it is not the lightness of the work, if it be once opposed to Gods, that makes it that day sinless.  Ceremonial, is a mere fancy, you must fly to some other reason: and you might have known it hath been alleged by diverse to be this, that the Lord there answered a particular case about working at the Tabernacle, and prohibits every work though never so light about the erection thereof for that day; because it tended not immediately to the worship of God: and thus now at this day it were sinful to build Churches on the Sabbath, or to kindle a fire to prepare or fit any work thereabout. So the precept, about the boiling and baking of the Manna gathered on the sixth day; that it, might not be left till the Sabbath to be then dressed, was 
b Vatablus in locum. Trem. Junius. Bysh. Babingt▪ in v 4. of Ch. 31. Exod. pag. 319.  A precept that concerned that present time, while the Manna fell, that they might see the miraculous power of God, in the keeping of it without corrupting, till the next day; and because on the Sabbath they should not find it in the field.  
Consider it well, if to kindle a fire to prepare things for the building of a Church be unlawful, which yourself hold to be a light work, and cannot but confess to be no work of private gain; then certainly much more are all other light works forbidden, that fall not under the works afore-rehearsed.  
Thirdly, but let us see what you allege in our Saviour; He approved of the letting of the Ox to the water, of rubbing the ears of corn: He made clay to anoint the eyes of the blind: He bade the lame man healed, take up his bed. What then? Are therefore light works to be done? It is no light work to make clay and carry beds; or that cannot be your reason; nay your instances are all wide from your purpose; you need clay or glue, to glue them together. Christ alloweth not these works of letting the Ox to water, and rubbing the ears of Corn, because they are light; but because they were works of mercy to save life, that could not be deferred, and did those other works himself; not because they were light, but enlightening. He commanded the impotent man to carry his bed; not because it was laborlesse, for it was laboursome, and therefore did he prescribe him that, and no light work to show his perfect soundness, and the truth of the miracle, to excite him and all to glorify God. 
Mayer in his English Catechism explained pag, 262. showeth that all the reasons of the Commandments bind us, and reach to us as to the jews: and allegeth it to prove that this Law is of force for every one of us, aswel as jews, and as much in force as any of the other nine: pag. 261.   
Fourthly, thus we need not dispensation for our Saviour, but a pardon for your abuse of his blessed words and deeds. That also which you allege touching his being under the Law, cuts the throat of your solution to the objection; and gives us just cause to consider and conclude, that all that you, or any other Divine hath ever said for the Christians freedom on the Lord's day, will be found but the jews freedom, which both they might have had, and had also by the Law of the fourth Commandment, had not their superstition, or superstitious teachers, wronged the Law, and them; for see what Christ did on the Sabbath and allowed, and in that behold those burdens of jewish superstition abandoned, and that (as some call it) of Christian liberty; which yet are no other, than matter of Christian duty to the eternal and moral Law, delivered in the fourth Commandment.  
First, you would have allowed a comfortable use of the Creatures, not only an use for mere necessity. God ever gave it on this day, for the Sabbath was a festival ever;  
The jews were usually (as too many are now) for want of right collation of Scriptures together, either superstitious, or sacrilegious.  
Fifthly, you would that things that tend to decency might be done, without which the ordinances cannot be so used to order and edification. They ever might; The Priests might blow their Trumpets and Horns on the Sabbath day, for the assembling of the people, Numb. 10. 2. So may our Bells be thus rung.  
Sixthly, it is not against Christian liberty to have the precise day appointed of God: it was not against the liberty and glory of our nature in integrity. And tell me (I pray you) whether it make more to Christian liberty to observe a day, by the constitution of the Church, or by institution of God, whose Service is perfect liberty. Yea, since it is usual with God to pour upon the Church on the Lord's day the holy Ghost (which is the Spirit of liberty) certainly it never returns, but it increaseth that liberty with greater accessions daily.  
That which some Divines have said, that the Sabbath in the Law▪ was a day 
n In se & per se sanctus. Per se, pars & instrumentum ●ultûs.  in itself, and of itself holy, and was of itself a part and instrument of piety, in respect of the rest. I cannot see how it can be grounded on the Commandment, or any other Scripture: the Commandment is, Remember the Sabbath or resting day to keep it holy; it was sanctified; and the rest enjoined, that it might be subservient to piety and holiness, as also the Lords day is. If any such thing were found to belong to that day, it was accessary; and if ought of type were in it to the jews, it was not enjoined in the precept, but given as an appendix to it, and so is taken away by Christ, and no way bindeth us to the use thereof.   

CHAP. XXI. Breerwood. Pag. 36, 37.  
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, & 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 seventh day of the week? The seventh (saith the precept) is the Sabaoth of the Lord thy God; In it thou shalt do no work. And why the seventh▪ Because in six days the Lord finished all the works of creation, and rested the seventh day; therefore he sanctified the seventh day; and what day is it whereof we question? The Lord's day? That the first day of the week▪ It is therefore the seventh 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. Object. But 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 be sufficient; it containeth all the commandments of God, whether of things to be done, or to be avoided, or to be believed. Sol. 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.  

Answer.  
You proceed, and would prove this wicked assertion, That it is no breach of any Divine commandment, for a servant at the commandment of his master, nay, for any one on his own head, to work on our Sabbath, which is the Lords day, the first day of the week.  
First, the commandment, say you, cannot be understood of the Lords day. Why I pray you, can you understand it of any other day save the Sabbath day? Doth not the tenor of the precept sound thus, Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it? You yield in the next breath, that the Lords day is the Christians Sabbath. You must then yield, that the commandment is understood of it. You would be thus understood, and take it very heinously, that you should be said to oppose God's Sabbath, do you? No: you do not, nor ever did. Fare be it from you; to think it, were to wrong you; to write it, were to calumniate you (thus you plead for yourself in the first section of your Reply, pag. 61, 62.) Yet lo, now the commandment cannot be understood of the Lords day? Why then, say man, the Lords day is not the Sabbath; for of the Sabbath is the commandment.  
Secondly, but to your reasoning; for it is not reason nor religion.  
What day was it of which the charge was so strictly given? was it not of the seventh day of the week, say you? Yes indeed, of the seventh, as the precept was first applied to man. But ask again, Why of the seventh more than the sixth? And the Lord answereth, Because it was the Sabbath of the Lord: for when it ceaseth to be the Lords Sabbath, the commandment is not of it, (as you also acknowledge, or else why keep you it not?) Yet the commandment standeth in full vigour, viz. of sanctifying▪ and resting on the Sabbath. To the jews the seventh from the Creation was the Sabbath, the commandment stood in vigour to them for that day: to the Christian, the seventh, even the first day of the week is the Sabbath: the commandment stands in vigour to them also for that day. Therefore he saith not, Remember thou sanctify the seventh day, and keep it Sabbath; nor, thou shalt do no work on the Sabbath day, for it is the seventh: but he saith, Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it; and, Thou shalt do no work▪ on the seventh, for it is the Sabbath. This Reason you leap, and yet you ask a Why; And why the seventh? Because God rested thereon, and sanctified the seventh day. Here you violate first, the words of the commandment written with Gods own finger, and then the sense; for it is thus read, 
o Exod. 20. 11.  Therefore he sanctified the Sabbath day, or resting day, and so he sanctified our Sabbath day as well as theirs: for, the Sabbath he sanctified, be it what day he shall be pleased to nominate: a matter of infinite comfort to us, that desire to do the duties of the day with faith, in Gods both blessing, and acceptation. And hereby your conclusion is utterly weakened.  
Thirdly, this reason is given both as a reason of the rest on that day, and as a plain declaration of the institution of that Sabbath day, and of this day in the precept now. He rested the seventh day, Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. When did he so? Gen. 2. 3. In the beginning. Yea, he did sanctify the seventh. Yea, than he sanctified the Sabbath, it was instituted, when he blessed and sanctified it, and this was in the Creation. But how was this done? The very work of the day instituted the day, which was this, the Lords resting, blessing, and sanctifying it. Now this teacheth us, that the institution of the Sabbath, in respect of the determination of the time, is to be looked for, in the work of God. God's resting, blessing, and sanctifying the seventh day, made it the Sabbath day: therefore in the commandment it is said, The seventh is the Sabbath, and the following words show how it was made the Sabbath, and what day he blesseth, and sanctifieth, is the Sabbath. Now Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath, by whom the worlds were made, Col. 1. 16. by whom also they are renewed, look in his work, and find undoubtedly the making and institution of the day to the world renewed; the seventh day he lay in the grave, here was no work of blessing and sanctifying; but the first day of the week very early he arose, and appeared to his Disciples; and unfolded the Scriptures, and opened their understandings to understand them.  
The fourth commandment (to speak all clearly) stands in 
p Nomine Sabbathi nobis significatur, quòd in nostris debeamus & nos Sabbathiꝭ ●●, Hoc est quiescere ab illis operibus, à quibus & judaei quiescere jubebantur. Zanch. de red. l. 1. c. 19  force to us, and the Lords resurrection, resting from the work of our redemption, and rejoicing in it, blessing it with that work, with diverse apparitions that very day, and sanctifying it with spending it among his Disciples in his presence bodily, now glorified, in heavenly expositions and operations upon their hearts, and in the return of the day many times, and in special, upon the return of it at Whitsuntide with the mission of the Holy Ghost. This, I say, applieth, and determineth it to this day we now observe▪ And as the jews are sent to seek the precise day in the Lords resting from the works of Creation, so we are sent to the rest, from the work of redemption. The institution of this day is clearly in the very work of the Resurrection, as the institution of the seventh day, was in the work of finishing the Creation.  
This hath been anciently taught, and still is sparsed in the writings of the godly learned.  
S. Augustine saith, 
q Domini resuscitatio promisit nobis aeternum diem, & consecravit nobis Dominicum Domini. Qui vocatur Dominicus, ipse propriè videtur ad Dominum pertinere, quia eo die Dominus resurrexit. Aug. de verbis Apost. Serm. 15. Dominicum ergò diem Apostoli & Apostolici viri ideò religios● solennitate habe●dum sanxerunt, quia in eodem Redemptor noster▪ ● mortuis resurrexit▪ Serm. de temp. 251.  The Lord's Resurrection hath promised us an eternal day, and hath consecrated to us the Dominical day of the Lord. The day which is called the Lords day, it seemeth properly to pertain to the Lord, because that day the Lord rose again.  
The same Father tells us, that in this resurrection of Christ, the Apostles and Apostolical men saw as much: he saith, the Lords day the Apostles and Apostolical men have ordained with religious solemnity to be kept, because in the same our Redeemer rose from the dead.  
Ignatius 
r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epist. ad Magn●s.  giveth this for the only Reason binding every one to keep this day, saying, Let every one that loveth Christ, celebrate the Lords day, the day pertaining to the Resurrection, the Queen and Prince of all days.  
Athanasius 
s Athanas. de Sabbat. & circumcis. Psal. 118. 124.  calls the Lord's day in which Christ renewed the old Man, the beginning of the new Creature; and therefore, he saith, when he had renewed the Creature which was made within six days, he would have that day consecrated to this instauration, which the Spirit foretells in the Psalm, This is the day which the Lord hath made.  
junius 
t Tempus ad conventus sacros, semper est dies octavus, quem inde à resurrectione Christi Ecclesia vocavit Dominicum, quod Christus suaresurrectione & sacto sacris coetibus dicavit, quem Apostoli observarunt & coetibus dicatum esse doc●erunt, & quem Christiana Ecclesia dictis corum obsequens, & facta imitans, concelebrat. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 4. sub sinem.  speaking of the time necessary to public worship, saith, It is the eighth day for ever, which the Church from the resurrection of Christ, hath called the Lord's day, which Christ by his resurrection and deed hath dedicated to holy assemblies, which the Apostles have observed, and have taught, that it is dedicated thereto, and which the Christian Church obedient to their words, and imitating their deeds, doth jointly celebrate.  
In the Preface to the Assembly of the Church of Scotland at Perth, Anno 1618. the question being moved, how the particular and material day may be known, that the Christian Church should observe; the answer is, that the particular day was demonstrated by our Saviour's Resurrection, and his apparitions made thereon; by the Apostolical practice, and the perpetual observation of the Church ever since that time, of the day which in Scripture is called the Lords day, as that which the jews observed, was called the Lords Sabbath; because as the one was appointed by the Lord for a memorial of his rest after the Creation, so the other was instituted by the Lord for a memorial of his Resurrection after the Redemption. For this we must hold as a sure ground, whatever the Catholic Church hath observed in all Ages, and is found in Scripture expressly to have been practised by Christ and the Apostles, (such as is the sanctification of the Lords day) the same most certainly was instituted by the Lord to be observed, and his practice in Word of the Lord, and of equal worth, as if the Lord by voice from heaven had spoken it, and more sure for us than such a voice, 1 Pet. 1. 12, 25. and 2 Pet. 1. 19, 20, 21. Whence it is clear, that the Gospel preached by the Apostles with the holy Ghost sent down from heaven, is the Word of the Lord that endureth for ever.  
Secondly, it was enjoined by the Apostles precept, and observed by them: enjoined, and the work of the day in part prescribed, 1 Cor. 16. 2. observed Act. 20. 7.  
Thirdly, the Apostle saith, that which you have seen and heard in me, that do; and the God of peace shall be with you, Phil. 4. 9 But this was seen, and heard of, to be done by him, Act. 20. 7. Therefore do it. Perkins on Gal. 4. vers. 10.  
Fourthly, if the same reason, grounded on God's Word, be as well for the first day of the week, as it was once for the Sabbath of the jews, than we are as certainly tied by the Lord to the observation of this day, as they were for their Sabbath: for the same reason is of the same force. But there is the same reason; therefore we are bound by the Lord. That there is the same reason, is apparent by those three places laid together, Exod. 20. 10. Mat. 12. 8. joh. 5. 23. The main reason of the jews Sabbath is, because it was the Sabbath of the Lord. In like manner ours is the Sabbath of the Lord Christ, when he had finished the work of our redemption: for which cause he taketh this name, the son of man is even Lord of the Sabbath: as if in more words he should say; when God the Father had once ended the making of the world, he rested, and published himself to be the Lord of that rest, and dedicated it to himself, giving it the name of the Sabbath of the Lord. In like manner, when I shall have finished the work of man's Redemption, I will rest (& have the day of my rest dedicated unto myself; for which cause, I say, that the son of man is even Lord of the Sabbath also; it shall be called, the Lords day. And thus the will of the Father shall be fulfilled, which is, that as they honoured the Father in keeping the Sabbath betwixt the Creation and Redemption; so they should honour the Son, in keeping the Sabbath betwixt the redemption and consummation of the world.  
Fifthly, the judgements of God fearfully, and to miracles lighting on the contemners and prophaners of this day by worldliness, the opposition of godless and most evil men; the Conscience working on men, for the observation and against the neglect thereof; the errors of Familists, Anabaptists, Papists, and such lose pleaders, as you and others have showed themselves to be, are strong and impregnable arguments for the Divine Authority of it; together with the contradictions, and the gross opinions you are forced to run into, which argue that you rebel against the light in you, and your profane Atheistical hearts would have that true, which yet your own light disproveth, in the truths that are forced thereby to drop from you.  
Sixthly, yea I shall (through God's grace) evince this, that it is of the Lords own institution: for, beside that his resurrection institutes it, as I said before;  
First, it is called the Lords day. Rev. 1. 10. Which cannot be for any reason, but because it is of the Lords institution: for so, first, the phrase, his day, not by creation, for so all days are his; not by destination, for that intendeth a time yet to come; and so the day of general judgement is his 1 Thes. 5. 2. but by consecration, and choice and institution; a fourth way I would hear designed, and then I shall be ready to make answer. Secondly, the like phrases of Scripture prove it in the same case in Exod. 20. 10. the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord; in other ordinances of Christ, the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 10. the Table of the Lord, 1. Cor. 10. 21. his ministry, 1. Tim. 1. 12. Thirdly, the manner of predication showeth, 
x Thom. Aquin. 3. q. 16. art. 3.  that this day belongeth to him by his own assuming, properly, for it's predicated of him denominatively, because it is said to be of the Lord denominatively, the man Christ is not the Lords, but the Lord; but his will, hand, Passion is lightly called, the Lords Will, the Lords hand, the Lords passion: for that which is of, and belonging properly to the Lord, is called the Lords.  
●he first day of the week, saith Tylenus, g Is destinated 
Primus Hebdomadis dies sacris congressi●us destinatus est, isque non modo ab Apostolis observatus sed etiam ab ipso Christo institutus videri potest, quem hoc die in conventus discipulorum venisse, testatur historia Evangelica. Tylen. Synt. loc. 44. p. 276.  to holy assemblies; and that not alone observed of the Apostles, Act. 20. 17. 1 Cor. 16. 1. But also it may be seen to be Instituted by Christ himself, whom the evangelical History doth testify to have come this day into the assemblies of the Disciples, joh. 20. 19, 26.  
Polyander, Rivet, Walaeus, Thysius, affirm 
h Hic dies absolutè non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantum, sed & denominatiuè cum articulo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nominari coepit, Apoc. 1. 10. nempe non solum quod eo resurrexit Dominus, & vivum se exhibuit, sedetiam quod ei rei imò universim Dominò imò à Domino sacratus dedi●aiusque esset. Qualiter & coena Domini 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellatur & locus conventus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & praec●tios●lemnis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scitè declarat Aug. de verbis Apost. Serm. 15. Si autem Apostolicae institutionis, divinae quoque fu●rit authoritatis synops pur. Theo. 2. disp. 1. p. 263.  that this day began to be named not only the day of the Lord, but also denominatively the Lord's day. Apoc. 1. 10. To wit, not only because the Lord rose thereon, and presented himself alive, but also because it was made holy and dedicated to that thing, yea, wholly to the Lord, yea, and of the Lord so sanctified and dedicated; like as also the Supper of the Lord is called the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. 20. and the place of assemblies the Lords, and the solemn prayer The Lord's Prayer, as wittily Augustine declareth in his fifteenth Sermon of the words of the Apostle. But if it were of Apostolic Institution; it were also of Divine authority.  
Bishop Andrew's saith, 
i Serm. 13. of the Resur p. 529.  the Lords day hath testimony in Scripture; for how came it to be the Lords day? But that, as it is in the Psalmest, the Lord made it; and why made he it? but because on it the stone cast aside, that is, Christ was made the head stone of the corner; that is, because then the Lord arose, because his resurrection fell on it.  
Who altered it? I answer, (saith Master Attersol) 
k Attersoll. on Numb. 15. vers. 3●. p. 644.  Christ himself is the Author of this change; the Apostles often teach, that whatsoever they taught, they received it from Christ; they learned it at his hands before, either by word of his mouth, or by revelation of his Spirit: but the Apostles enjoined the first day of the week to be kept as a Sabbath of rest. 1 Cor. 16. 1.  
Master Barker, 
l On the fourth Commandment p. 186.  God did change the days, and to show the alteration, the Apostles gave this day the name of the Lords day, they themselves kept it and ordained that the Churches in their time should observe it.  
Our renowned Champion Doctor Fulke, in the confutation of the Rhemists saith, 
m Dr. Fulke on Reve. 1. 10. sect. 6.  To change the Lords day and keep it upon Monday, Tuesday, or any other day, the Church hath no authority; for it is not a matter of indifferency, but a necessary prescription of Christ himself delivered to us by his Apostles.  
Christ did appoint the new Sabbath, saith Wolphius, 
n Wolph. Chronol. l. 2. c. 1.  when our last enemy death being overcome, he made an end of the labours of our Redemption, which in his humanity were to be borne, and the next day with the new man restored, he brought out a new time; the time of our Redemption, and of the new Covenant.  
Add hereunto Doctor Bound in the book of the Sabbath commended by that painful and learned Divine, Doctor Willet and Doctor jones, in two latin epistles prefixed.  
To conclude this matter, the Apostles made this day the Lords day, by a declaratory consecration, which Christ himself made before the Lord's day, by a fundamental and binding relation, to wit, His resurrection thereon; and by blessed and actual application to his use in his apparitions and expositions thereon, and by institution in his deeds and words, for the Apostles taught to do but what Christ commanded. Matth. 28. 20. Act. 1. 3.    

CHAP. XXII. Breerwood. Pag. 38, 39  
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  
Secondly, but you go about to prove the jews Sabbath ceremonial, because first, it was a sign of difference between jews and Gentiles, and part of the partition wall. The first part of this proof was answered before; it was a sign between God and them, that the Lord sanctified them; so the Sanctification of the Sabbath (understand it of ours) is still a sign that God sanctifieth a man, every sign is not a ceremony, as every living creature is not a man. The Sabbath was a sign of the creation, saith Athaenasiu● 
r Athanas. & de Sabbato & Circumcis. , yet not therefore a ceremony.  
The second part of your proof employed, when you say it was a part of the partition wall, is very unsound: the partition wall 
s Zanch. in Ephes. 2. v. 14. 15.  spoken of in Ephe. 2. 14. was the Law of Commandments contained in ordinances spoken of in the next verse, which was not the Law moral, but the ceremonial; therefore you must prove first the Sabbath to be ceremonial, and then we yield it is taken away, and so fare forth as you can make that good.  
Thirdly, again to prove it ceremonial, you allege the place in Col. 2. 16. but that the Apost. speaketh not there of the fourth Commandment is evident. First, because he treateth expressly of those Sabbaths which were of the same rank with the New-Moones, and were ceremonial shadows of things to come in Christ: but the Sabbath prescribed in the Decalogue, is altogether of another nature, as hath been, and shall be further showed. Secondly, he speaketh as the Apostles doth to the Galatians, cap. 4. 10. but the place there treats only of the observation of the days, months, and years, which pertained to the servitude and bondage of weak and beggarly rudiments; as in vers. 9 appeareth. Now that any precept of the Decalogue should be so accounted and reckoned as a weak and beggarly rudiment, was fare from the Apostle to think, and is abhorred to Christian ears and religion.  
Whatsoever also was Ceremonial in the Sabbath (if it be granted according to the opinion of many Divines, that some ceremony was in the day) in respect of that precise day, that is, by constitution annexed to it extrinsecally, and not of the nature of the Sabbath, and first institution thereof, which nothing hinders the morality of the seventh day's institution; for so in the Authority of Fathers and first borne, which pertains to the fifth commandment, there was annexed a Ceremonial reason of a type, namely, the shadowing out of Christ, the first borne among many brethren: yet by this annexed typical figure, the fifth commandment, nor the privilege of the first borne, in respect of the first nature of it, is not ceremonial.  
Nevertheless, by Scripture there appeareth not unto me of certainty, any ceremony or type in the observation of the seventh day properly so called: for the mention of a spiritual Sabbatisme in Heb 4. 9 presignified in some type foregoing, under the nature of a type if referred only to the rest in Canaan, and by comparison of the like, to the rest of God: but by no means in the least signification is it referred to the rest commanded in the fourth precept, as to a type and shadow.  
And whereas the Fathers, and many others include the jewish Sabbath within the former text, they must in my judgement, be understood of that day, as it was the day in which the ceremonial worship (which was then the worship of God) was the sanctification of the Sabbath, and as that precise day was, till Christ came, apt and fit; but now after Christ's resurrection, not fit for the new world, but swallowed up of the greater, namely, the Lords day, fit for the memorial of the works of Creation and Redemption. For to observe the Sabbath with Moses Rites, were to deny Christ come in the flesh, whose Kingdom is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the holy Ghost; and to this the old Sabbatarian Heretics had an aim: and to observe the jewish seventh for Sabbath now, deserves worthily the Anathema of ancient Counsels, and Saint Augustine's sharp sentence, who saith thus; 
t Quisque illum diem observat, ut litera sonat, carnaliter sapit, Despir & lit. c. 14.  Whosoever shall keep that day as the letter soundeth, savoureth of the flesh. And lastly, to observe the Sabbath in the devised assumed superstitious strictness jewish, which was never commanded, but taken up of their own heads; or in the luxurious heathenish sports that others of them used, is deservedly condemned by the Ancients, and is against, or Christian liberty, or Christian sanctity.  
Fourthly, but, to return; grant it to be ceremonial, yet your arguing will not hold, that the Sabbath in the Commandment is utterly vanished: for all that place, ceremony in that rest, do hold that the rest in heaven was that which was chiefly aimed at. Now this maketh against you; for then a Sabbaths rest must remain till that eternal rest be come: for though it be assured, yet it is not come. And if the assurance by word and pledge would have cut off the necessity of a Sabbath rest to shadow it, than might all the shadows of the ceremonial Law have been spared, for they had the Word, Oath, and Spirit of God to assume Christ's coming and from that place in Heb. 4. Doctor Willet 
u D. Willet on Gen. 2. his places of doctrine.  saw enough to prove the divine institution of the Lords day, as a Sabbath rest, he thus reasoneth:  
Every symbol significative or representing sign mentioned in Scripture had a divine institution, but so is the Sabbath a symbol or type of our everlasting rest, Heb. 4. 9 there remaineth therefore Sabbatismus, a Sabbath rest to the people of God. Which words do conclude, that both the type remaineth, that is, a Sabbatisme, and the signification of the type everlasting rest.   

CHAP. XXIV. Breerwood. Pag. 39  
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, and that in relation of Christian assemblies, namely that they might meet and pray, and and praise God together with one voice in the congregation. And secondly designing 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.  

Answer.  
First, Yea; a shadow? Of which we have the substance in Christ? Out of Date? and expired of itself? Part of the partition wall? And yet the celebration and consecration of the Sabbath translated justly? Then the Church, by your Doctrine, may revive the ceremonial law, and put life into the dead carcase thereof; the Church may not alone embrace the shadow, of which Christ is the body, but also appoint it to be embraced: the Church may translate part of the ceremonial Law (which yet Moses the typical mediator would not, might not order a tittle of it, to a loop, lace, or placing of either, but keep to the pattern shown him in the Mount) and so by the same reason translate priesthood and all, Heb. 6. The Church than is Lord of the Sabbath, and can consecrate, and not only celebrate the Sabbath, all full of blasphemy against Christ, and blemish to his chaste spouse.  
Secondly, and for your distinction of generality and speciality of the commandment, (besides what hath been said before) if you yield not the speciality to be moral, you turn out one commandment of the ten from being moral for all your generality for to say that this is the morality of the commandment & no more, that some time should be sequestered to divine worship, maketh this commandment no more moral, than the building of the Tabernacle or Temple is moral: for therein this perpetual will of God was showed, that some place must be assigned for Church assemblies and public worship.  
By this also it will follow, that the Papists that in their Catechisms render the fourth commandment thus, keep holy the festival days, do render the full s●nse of it. Which being yielded, this also will follow, that you may aswell put it down thus, frequent the assemblies.  
Moreover, all the feast days of the jews contained this general equity. Lastly, than God should in this command nothing to particular men, because it is not in their power to institute these days, and so nothing shallbe commanded to them further, than what public persons shall enjoin, be it but one day in the year: and for them neither is there any thing commanded in special, and they sinne not if they appoint but one day in a Moon, or if they appoint but one in a quarter, than also the Feasts of Christ's Nativity, of Easter of Whitsuntide, etc. are of equal authority with the Lords day, which thing, what ears can hear with patience? These also are constitutions of the ancient primitive Church.    

CHAP. XXV. Breerwood. Pag. 39, 40, 41.  
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 seventh day to the first day, then is working on the first 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 seventh. For could the Church make that God's commandment which was not his commandment? God's commandment, was to rest on the seventh day, and work on the first; therefore to rest on the first, and work on the seventh, was not his commandment: For doth the same commandment of God enjoin both labour and rest on the same day? is there fast and lose in the same commandment ●●th God? Thou shalt work on the first day saith that, and work ●● the seventh saith this. Can the Church make these the same commandment? But say the Church hath this incredible and 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 and learning in the World will not prove it.  

Answer.  
First, this reasoning is on false grounds supposed (as hath been proved) and therefore falls to the ground.  
Secondly, yet take their own grounds.  
If the Church have power to translate the day and consecrate it a Sabbath, they may have power, and had so, to translate the Commandment: for the Commandment is but the consecration of the Sabbath, and determination thereof to a certain day.  
And if they do not translate the Commandment, yet the Commandment stands in force for that day to which by just power they have translated the Sabbath. For the Commandment is in force as a law of nature; you confess, for the celebration of a Sabbath, or else you deny a morality in any part of that Commandment, but if that your morality stand, (as without doubt it doth) then is working on that day equally a violation of the Commandment of God; as working on the seventh, from the creation, for than it was sinful, because that day was then Sabbath: and now it is so because this is now Sabbath.  
Thirdly, and for those quaeres, let me see the Act? Let me see the Authority, as they may be retorted to your conceit of their translating the seventh day, and consecrating it a Sabbath, so in the true sense of consecrating that day, you have seen before the Act and Authority, and may now see (if you wink not) that the Commandment is not translated but remains the same it was, namely, to keep holy the Sabbath day. Neither is there a making of that God's Commandment which was not his, nor yet doth the commandment contain any impossibilities and contradictions. Distingue tempora, & tolle dubia, Distinguish the times, and the doubts vanish, the Commandment enjoineth rest and holiness Sabbath-like on the Lord's Sabbath, than that seventh day, now this seventh day: and of both is it true, the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. Then the seventh day was it, and so enjoined thereon; Now the first day of the week, and so enjoined thereon. Hence this reasoning is easily answered. First, God commanded to work on the first and rest on the seventh, therefore to rest on the first, and work on the seventh was not his Commandment, it was not then, it is now, moreover, six days thou shalt work, doth not point out, which six days, and the seventh day will contain both ours and theirs: and their seventh they knew then by the work of Creation as our seventh we know by the work of Redemption.  
For the authority and Act of the Church we need it not, the Scripture as before, hath saved the labour. But that the act of this power was put forth, the Church hath acknowledged and yourself do while you yield, the first day consecrated Sabbath.    

CHAP. XXVI. Breerwood. Pag. 41, 42, 43.  
Object. But you may object, if the old Sabaoth vanished and the commandment of God was limited and fixed to that day only, then is one of God's commandments perished. Sol. I answer, that the generality of that commandment to keep a Sabaoth wherein God might be honoured, was moral; But the speciality of it, namely to keep, (1) one day of seven, (2) the seventh, (3) one whole day, (4) with precise vacancy from all work, were merely ceremonial? the speciality 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 sabbatical 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 seventh rather than 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.  

Answer.  
First, this objection we own, and for your distinction thus disprove it. Your granted Generality is commanded in the commandments foregoing, in which God that commands a worship, commands also time for it, as when he created the world, time was concreated of necessity. Besides, this vain conceit was before blown up. Therefore if all you name and put into the speciality of the Commandment be merely ceremonial, we have no fourth Commandment distinct from the former.  
Secondly, for your speciality which you say is all merely ceremonial, we proved before that the light of nature would prove the contrary, and now we assault every particular with the sword of the spirit, that the hairy scalp of it may be wounded, and in the welding of the same put our hands on the hands of the Lords Worthies, to fetch the blows with more force.  
First, that one day of seven, and particularly the seventh, is not ceremonial, is evident by the commandment, which delivered with Gods own mouth in the mount, and charged by way of command, is no other than moral and indispensable. And by the celebration of the Christian Sabbath in the New testament, which was on the seventh day, viz. the first day of the week, and was constantly in weekly revolution celebrated. Calvin saith, 
y Calvin. in quar●um praec●ptum. diem unum separat a reliquis, & ab omnibus terrenis negotiis & curis imm●nē; quoad hanc partem, nobis cum veteri populo communis est Sabba●i necessitas, ut die uno liberi simus atque ita melius parati tam ad discendum qudm ad fidem nostram testandum.  God separateth one day from the rest, and wills that it be free from all earthly business and cares. In this respect the necessity of the Sabbath is common to us with the ancient people, that one day we be free, and so the better prepared as well to learn, as to testify our faith: so Peter Martyr on Gen. 2. and Mast. Perkins on Gal. 4. 10. and infinite many more. The Apostles knew and that by the Scriptures, saith learned Fulke, that one day of seven was appointed to be observed for ever, during the world, consecrated to the public exercises of Gods true Religion. The Church of Scotland saith, that the 
Preface to the assembly at Perth.  day commanded in the Law, formally must remain, and ever be the seventh, after six days work. Chemnitius 
z Chemnit. examen Concil. trident. cap. de dieb. fest. Tam Veteris quàm Novi Testamenti pagina septimam diem ad humanam quietem specialiter deputat, id est, (interpret Zu●rez. de diebus festis Cap. 1.) utrúmque Testamentun appro. bavit morem deputandi ad quietem humanam, septimum quenque diem hebdomadae: quod est formaliter deputate septimum dicm, licet materialiter non idem dies fuerit semper deputatus: & hoc modo verum est, scptimum diem in lege veteri esse Sabbathum, in nova verò esse dominicam diem. De fcriis cap. licet.  (who with the Lutherans, ascribeth too much in this thing to the Church's liberty) yet affirmeth truly thus much: This is that which is said usually and truly, that the New Testament in the commandment of keeping holy the Sabbath day, abrogated not the Genus, the general, which is moral, but the species, the special: that is, hath not taken away the general, which is the seventh day, for this is natural: but the special or particular, namely, that seventh day which the jews kept in remembrance of the first Creation. Alexander the third Pope of Rome, affirmeth that the page as well of the old as the new Testament hath specially deputed the seventh day to humane rest: that is (by the interpretation of Zuarez) both Testaments have approved, the manner of deputing every seventh day of the week to humane Rest: which is to depute the seventh day formally, although the same day materially hath not always been deputed: and by this means it is true, that that seventh day in the old law was Sabbath, but in the New the Lord's day is Sabbath. M. Attersoll on Numbers 15. 35. p. 645. well observeth, that if one day in seven be not moral and perpetual, a man may say that one day in seven weeks or seven years is enough, and so at length it shall be said, we are not bound to meet together publicly above one day in a 100 years. But this absurdity Gomarus, ᵃ that holds the contrary opinion, thinketh he 
Gomarus de invest. haeret. & orig. Sab. c. 5. pa. 61. Certi dies & sufficientes.  hath evaded, by these words, when he holdeth that not only certain days, but also sufficient days be observed for God's worship. But this is just nothing, for are not one day in a year yearly certain days, and so of the rest: and if that some shall say they are enough, though others speak against it, who shall tell which of these two sides, sides with the truth, when what is enough (you hold) God hath not particularly determined: yea, but Gomarus saith▪ that what days are sufficient may be gathered out of the precept of the Sabbath, namely, that they be, either not more seldom, or else a little more oft, than the Sabbaths of the Israelites, as the indulgence of God in giving that precept, showeth. For when the Lord for his clemency sake, took one of seven only to his worship for the Israelites, men of a stiffe-necke and pressed with the heavy yoke of feasts and other ceremonies; how shall more seldom suffice among Christians, that are free from that yoke and burden? Very good: Can any look on this without grief and laughter. If out of the precept you must gather your sufficient days, why will you not take the day's God hath in precept warranted for sufficient and sufficiently blessed; one of seven, the seventh? If this your sufficiency must be gathered from the precept, and that too as you gather that they be more to us than were to jews, than we are to have two Sabbaths a week at the least, and the Church erred that Anathematised the keepers of Saturday in the time of the Gospel, and still erreth that never saw this yet, much less observed it. Or if you say, no they must not be Sabbaths, how then gather you this sufficiency of the days out of the fourth Commandment which concerneth the Sabbath and not half holidays, and other feasts: and if the jews were yoked with observation of feasts, & therefore God's clemency would they should keep but the seventh day? What an insupportable yoke do you lay upon Christians, that must, as you say, keep more than one of seven, or else they keep not a sufficient number? all the jewish feasts would hardly arise to the number that two in a week constantly do amount to: and what interfearing is here? One of the seven days of the week in perpetual revolution is not necessarily to be observed by force of the fourth Commandment. And yet fewer than one a week cannot be sufficient, and that by virtue of the fourth Commandment. What? would you have more than one a week by virtue of the Commandment, and therefore you say, one is not necessary? Or is that which is only sufficient, not necessary? Why then take that which is insufficient, and let that be yet necessary, even one when you will, and more when you will, now this day, now that, you may do them all a favour to take them over by turns. Thus fare for Gomarus in this thing.  
Secondly, that one whole day be kept holy and no less is moral, and not ceremonial, you yield that the commandment for a Sabbath is moral: now God never mentioned less than a day, saying, Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day, the distinction also of time by the Lord of time cleareth this, for the whole week is divided into seven days, and every of those days consisteth of 24. hours. David, in his Psalm for the Sabbath day 
b Psal 92. title with verse 2. , describeth the time thus, It is good to show forth thy loving kindness in the morning, and thy faithfulness every night (meaning every Sabbath day morning and night) as the title showeth. The apparition of our Saviour at the night of the day of his Resurrection in the midst of the Disciples assembled 
c joh 20. 19 Profunda jam nocte, it being now very late at night, saith Are●ius. , proveth that the night following of the day of Sabbath (take here day for the daylight between sun and sun) is of the Sabbath: and lastly, the celebration of the Lords day by Paul at Troas in Act. 20. 7. out of which, saith Mr. Perkins, I note two things: First, that the night mentioned there, was a part of the seventh day of Paul's abode at Troas: for, if it were not, so than he had stayed at least a night longer, and so more than seven days, because he should have stayed part of another day. Secondly, that this night was part of the Sabbath which they then kept. For the Apostles keep it in manner of a Sabbath, in the exercises of piety and divine worship,   

Answer.  
This also suffereth just exception, both in itself, and in reference to the matter in hand: it bindeth you yield; because God's command bindeth to obey the Churches just constitutions. Consider, it is Gods Command that bindeth, and not the Churches, but as it is Gods. Now Gods Command bindeth equally: and to despise Christ, and despise him in his Apostles (in as much as he saith, He that despiseth you, despiseth me,) is alike sinful: or what if it bind not equally? (to take your own words) if it bind enough to make the transgressor a sinner before God? For this was never questioned, whether the Master or Servant were the greater sinner, in the servants working on the Sabbath. Again, it bindeth equally, by your own doctrine, because you say in pag. 43. lib. 1. it is of the Church guided by the Spirit of God, unless you will say that the doctrine of the New Testament, preached and written by men with the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven, is of less binding power than the Ten Commandments delivered on Mount Sinai; which runneth against, not only all Christian religion, but also those Texts in special. Heb. 2. 2, 3. & 12.    

CHAP. XXVIII. Breerwood. Pag. 43, 44, 45.  
But if you ask me how fare doth that constitution of the Church oblige the conscience? I answer you, as fare as it doth command, (you will desire no more) further it cannot: It cannot oblige farther, than it doth ordain; it cannot bind the conscience for guiltiness further than it doth for obedience; because all guiltiness both 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 and 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 Sabaoth was not given to the Sabaoth and its heirs; 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.  

Answer.  
First, what was acknowledged by the Church, as enjoined by the point of vacancy from all labour, without the least relish of jewish ceremonies; we shall see in the next Chapter. Here only we examine your supposed confutation of a reason to prove it; which reason is this; The Lord's day is succeeded in the place of the Sabbath, or as some say, as Heir of the Sabbath, therefore to be kept Sabbath-like. You confute it thus: If it succeeds it in place, must it succeed in equal preciseness of observation? No, It succeeded in point of Sanctification, not of exact vacation. I reply, your distinction is not distinct; for if in Sanctification, then in exact vacation, namely, vacation sabbatical: for if in the end, in the means necessary to that end, and for that end ordained, which is exact vacation, so fare as it may further Sanctification: Now for your playing on the terms about an Heir, it is frivolous.  
Secondly, for your instance in the Pope succeeding Peter, arguing from place to power, it little conduceth to this matter: for the Pope succeedeth not in place Apostolical, if he did, I should not much doubt of his power Apostolical. Had there been a certain Commandment of God to show, that God in his eternal Law commanded his people to obey the Apostolical place? But by place you mean room, not Official function, and then what kin between your instance, and the matter in hand?    

CHAP. XXIX. Breerwood. Pag. 45, 46, 47.  
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 canons 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 emblies in 
* Apolog. 2.  justin Martyr; and a day of rejoicing in 
* Apolog. c. 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 that 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 best nursing Father of Christian religion that ever Prince was) would he I say, have licenced by his decree, the country people freely) liberè 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 and 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▪ 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.  

Answer.  
Having made it evident that the Commandment of God stands in force for our Sabbath, I might easily cast off all that you shall say to the end of your Discourse: but to clear and scour the coast, and make it apparent that what you say is nothing, and all maketh for us, who in this thing hold the Truth, we proceed.  
You say, you find nothing for the general restraint of works on the Lord's day in any History, cannon monument, and register of Antiquity, but clear evidence to the contrary.  
First, for the first; let the places you allege speak out that all may hear them, and not be blindly huddled up.  
That in Euseb. l. 4. cap. 22. is a passage in the Epistle of Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, to Soter Bishop of Rome, concerning the accustomed reading of the Epistle of Clement to the Corinth's; in their public assemblies on the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Lord's day, of which he saith thus; We have spent (or passed through to the end of it) the Lord's day to day, an Holy day. Now to spend the Lords day throughout, an holy day, is not to spend any of it in servile work; let Scripture, Heathen writers, and all men testify: this was done saith that Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After their ancient custom: justin Martyr, after he hath recorded all the duties of their public assemblies, addeth this, (having spoken in the precedent words of the administration of the Lords Supper) But we after those things for the remainder (of the time) do ever remember one another of these things, and those of us which have any thing, help every one that wants, and are always together one with another. A little after he saith, that the assemblies on that day were frequented of all in City and Country, prayer, preaching, and the Sacrament was administered, Collections for the poor, which was after the assemblies, distributed to the needy, imprisoned, stranger, with the like, whom they visited.  
Tertullian, in that 16, chapter of his Apology against the Gentiles, gives this as one cause of their conjecture, that Christians worshipped the Sun, because they kept the Sunday Holy. We give ourselves to joy (saith he) the Sunday, for another fare wide reason than in honour of 
Diem solis laetitiae indulgemus.  the Sun are we in the second place from them which appoint Saturday, to idleness and feeding themselves, also wand'ring from the jewish custom, which they know not. What meaneth he hereby, but that such a solemnity is kept and ought to be by Christians, as should exceed in that kind the feasts of the nations and Heathen, as in his book of Idolatry, chap. 14. he speaketh.  
Ignatius speaketh enough to any man not prepossessed, for he saith, let every lover of Christ celebrate the Lords day as festival, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek word signifieth a solemn festival free from work and workeday labour.  
That others also of the ancients did understand this celebration to be with exact vacation is evident.  
Saint Austin saith, come ye to the Church every Lord's day, for if the unhappy jews do celebrate the Sabbath with such devotion, that in it no earthly works were done; how much more ought Christians to be vacant to God alone on the Lord's day, and come together for the Salvation of their souls?  
Again, Apostles and Apostolic men have therefore ordained that the Lords day be kept with religious solemnity, because in it our Redeemer arose from the Dead; and which is therefore called the Lords day, that in it, abstaining from earthly affairs and the enticements of the world, we may serve only in divine worship.  
That of Saint Clement is also worthy note, neither on the Lords days, which are days of joyfulness, do we grant any thing may be said or done, besides holiness.  
Austin also in the sixth book de Civitate Dei chap. 11. speaking of Seneca's scoffing at the jews Sabbath, that they lost the seventh part of their time in vacancy, addeth this; Notwithstanding he durst not speak of the Christians, even than most contrary to the jews, on either part, lest either he should praise them against the old custom of his own Country, or reprove them perhaps against his own will.  
Saint Austin likewise reproveth their telling of tales, their slanders, playing at dice, and such unprofitable sports; as if one part of the day were set apart for duty to God, and the rest of the day together with the night to their own pleasures: In the same place also he condemns walking about the fields and woods, when they should be at 
Serm. 251. De Temp.  Divine Service with clamour and laughter, and saith the day must be sequestered a rurali opere, & ab omni negotio; from country work and all business, that we may give ourselves wholly to the worship of God.  
Saint chrysostom speaking of the fitness of the Lords day for alms, saith; it is a convenient time to practise liberality, with a ready and willing mind; not only in this regard, but also because it hath rest, remission, freedom and vacation from labours.  
Saint Ambrose 
q Ambros. tom. 3. Serm. 1. de granosinapis, p. 225.  reproving the people's neglect of Church on the Lords days, saith; Whatsoever brother is not present at the Lords Sacraments, of necessity he is with God a forsaker of the Divine truth. For how can he excuse himself, who preparing his dinner at home on the day of the Sacraments, contemneth that heavenly Banquet, and taking care of the belly, neglecteth the physic of his soul?  
The same Father in another place 
r Id. Serm. 33. pag. 259. tom. 3.  saith: Let us all the day be conversant in prayer or reading; he that cannot read, let him ask of some holy man, that he may be fed with his conference: let no secular acts hinder divine acts; let no Table-play carry away the mind; let no pleasure of Dogs call away the senses; let no dispatch of a business pervert the mind with covetousness. True, this Father in this place speaketh of a Fast, but we know that a Fast and Sabbath are alike for the point of rest.  
Saint 
s Hieron. ad Rustich. Dominicos dies, orationi tantum & lectionibus vacant.  Hierom also; On the Lord's day, saith he, they only give themselves to prayer and reading.  
Secondly, now for your contrary evidences, what if they also make for us? You allege a constitution of Constantine's, jurge:  
First, the same Emperor's Constitutions found in Ecclesiastical Writers. Eusebius in his life saith:  
Wherefore he ordained, that all that obeyed the Roman Empire, should rest from all labour on the days that are called from our Saviour's Name. Further, he saith of this Christian Emperor;  
He taught all his host to honour this day diligently: those that partooke of the Divine Faith▪ he gave them leisure to frequent the Assemblies, that no impediment should hinder their attendance on prayer, but others that had no savour of Divine Doctrine, he gave charge of them by another Law, that they should go into the open fields of the Suburbs on the Lord's day, and that there altogether should use the same form of prayer to God, when asigne was given of some one of them: for, said he, we ought not to use spears, and place the hope of our affairs in weapons, and bodily strength.  
Sozomen in his tripartite history testifieth thus, That day which is called the Lords day, which the Hebrews call the first day; which the Grecians attribute to the Sun, and which is before the seventh day, he ordained that all should cease from suits and other businesses, and should only be occupied in prayers upon it 
t Sozom Hist. Eccles tripert. l. 1. c. 10. .  
Behold Constantine against Constantine.  
Secondly, your Constitution is read, Cod. l. 3. tit. 12 l. 3.  
This Constitution was reversed by Leo the Emperor, and another made in these words:  
We ordain according to the true meaning of the holy Ghost, and of the Apostles thereby directed, that on the sacred day wherein our integrity was restored, all do rest and surcease labour; that neither husbandmen, nor other on that day put their hands to forbidden works: for if the jews did so much reverence their Sabbath, which was but a shadow of ours, are not we which inhabit the light and truth of grace, bound to honour that day which the Lord himself hath honoured, and hath therein delivered us both from dishonour and from death? Are we not bound to keep it singular and inviolable, well contenting ourselves with so liberal a grant of the rest, and not encroaching upon that one which God hath chosen to his honour? Were it not reckless neglect of Religion to make that very day common, and to think we may do with it as with the rest.  
The title of this Constitution is this 
u justin. tom. 3. p. 459. Leon. Iraper. constit. 54. ,  Dominicis diebus omnes ab operibus vacent: That all men should cease from works on the Lords days. This Constitution of Leo is approved by Master Hooker 
x Hooker eccles. polit. l. 5. sect. 71. pag. 385. , and that of Constantine called an overgreat facility under pretence of the miscarriage of the fruits of the earth by unseasonable weather.  
Yet this may be said for that renowned Emperor, he gave that as a concessory Law, which proves nothing, unless it be the hardness of men's hearts. So Moses permitted men to put away their wives, and Aaron agreed to it, and yet none can reason thence that they were not of Christ's mind in that matter. Say the same for Constantine.  
The Council of Laodic●a is abused by you in your Allegation thereof, for the Canon of that Council according to the Greek is this:  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That Christians 
y Concil. Laod. Can. 29.  ought not to judaize, and to rest on the Sabbath, as they are Christians; but if they be found to judaize, let them be Anathema from Christ, or with Christ.  
The Annotation upon it, is this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deest.  
Of this Original I find three Latin Translations. The first; Quod non oportet Christian●s judaïzare, & ociari in Sabbato, sed operarieos in eodem die, preferentes autem in veneratione diem Dominicum (si vacare voluerint) ut Christiani hoc faciant: quod si reperti fuerint judaïzare, Anathe ma sint à Christo. Thus in English: 
z Translat. Dionys●i exigui.  That Christians ought not to judaize, and rest on the Sabbath, but work on that day, and preferring the Lords day in reverence (if they will be vacant) as Christians do this thing: but if they be found to judaize, let them be Anathema from Christ.  
The second: Non oportet Christianos' judaïzare, & in Sabbatho vacare, sed operari eos in eadem die, Dominicam preponendo eidem diei: si hoc eis placet, vacent tanquam Christiani, quod si inventi fuerint judaïzare, Anathema sit. In English: 
a Translat. Isidori Mercatoris.  Christians ought not to judaize, and to surcease labour on the Sabbath, but work on that day, preferring the Lord's day before that day: if this please them, they may be vacant as Christians, but if they be found to judaize, let him be Anathema.  
The third: Quod non oportet Christianos' judaïzare & in Sabbato ociari: sedipso eo die operari: diem autem Dominicum preferentes ociari, si modo possint ut Christi●●os, quod si inventi fuerint ut judaïzantes, sint Anathema apud Christum. 
b Gentianus Hervetus.  That Christians ought not to judaize, and rest on the Sabbath: but work that day: but preferring the Lords day, they ought to rest as Christians, if so be they can, and if they be found as judaizing, let them be Anathema with Christ.  
Here note three things; first, that the Sabbath here spoken of, is Saturday, which was the jews Sabbath. Secondly, that the last is by all acknowledged for the worst translation: indeed they are all rather paraphrases and glosses, than translations. Thirdly, the two first plainly carry this sense: that provided they prefer the Lords day in honour and reverence above the jews Sabbath, and that they do not judaize; if this please them, they may rest the Saturday too. And the last translation in my opinion, and according to the pointing thereof, as I find it in the Author foundeth thus, preferring the Lord's day they must rest, if so be they can do it as Christians, not as judaizers. Now how the jews did rest on their Sabbath in those primitive times, is clear in Ignatius and others.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In English as followeth:  
Therefore (saith that blessed Martyr 
c Ignat. epist. ad Magnes. ) let us not Sabbatise after the jewish manner, as rejoicing in idleness, (for he that doth not labour let him not ear, for in the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat thy bread, say the Oracles: but let every of us keep Sabbath spiritually, rejoicing in the meditation of the Law, not in the remission of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, not eating things of the day before, nor drinking things lukewarm, nor walking measured spaces, nor rejoicing in dance and mad shoutings, and clap of the hands and feet.  
Now was it not needful to say, if they can, they should rest the Lords day like Christians, and not like jews in an idle, wanton, luxurious, and lascivious rest, which was rather idleness and sloth, than rest; rather madness like those that kept Bacchus' Feast, than rest.  
But this Alleager taketh to the worst Translation, and fasteneth upon that clause, which by no means will be admitted to your Tenet, is no breach of any divine commandment. What by freely? May he do it, so he do it with reluctancy? What by every man? Are some privileged? As the Tempter said to Eve; Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every Tree of the Garden. Some need no privilege, for some will not labour any day, these need no such liberty to work extraordinarily the Lord's day, your liberty were their bondage on any day; or may some freely profane it, though not every man? Or ordinary labour in none will profane it? Or will ordinarily labour in some profane it, but only extraordinary labour in other? How too shall one know this ordinary and extraordinary labour apart? What mean you to say, (Would I set at liberty?) because, in your opinion, there is no command of God to bind; therefore can you bind and lose?  
Secondly, it is meet, say you, that all worldly affairs be abandoned that day, and that it be dedicated wholly to the honour of God: What? meet to do that which no Law of God, of Apostles, of universal Synods did ever require, as you spoke but now? What? is it meet for a present purpose? To distil your poison closely, which shall run like oil into the bones of Church and Commonwealth, and none stay it: while the devout heart shall be put off with this flap, It is meet indeed.  
It is meet that Christians should be as devout in rest and sanctity on the Lord's day, as the jews on their Sabbath. That is all one as to say, (according to what you have taught before,) that a man should be as devout in the commands of his own heart, as in God's command (for so you make it) and in the precepts of men, as in Gods: what deifying is here of men, and vilifying of God?  
Thirdly, but what an argument is here? The obligation of our thankfulness is more than theirs, though the obligation of his commandment be less herein; therefore the Christian should be more devout than the jew. I had thought the commandment had bound to Devotion, and the greater the more. I had thought the Greatness of benefits (whence the debt of thankfulness is greatned) had increased the obligation of the commandment, and our obedience to it? But now you yield, his commandment some what obligeth on our Sabbath, though less, when before you utterly denied any breach of any divine commandment in labouring that day, and so any obligation.  
To strengthen this argument, you express your wish, that most religiously with all abstinence, and all attendance it were kept. Do you wish this with all your heart, and yet bend all your might to overthrow the commandment of God? Would you, or could you think, that your wish should prevail more than Apostolic truth?  
Fourthly, have we in one breath these contradictory sentences: No constitution of the Church obliging to the strict desisting from labour. And the constitutions of some ancient Counsels restraining that profanation.  
Fifthly, you come in with the Edicts of Princes, as one that would have the observation of the Lords day depend upon constitutions of the Church, and Edicts of Princes only: and so not to differ from another holy day. Most wicked, Popish, worse than Popish, and against all the famous lights ancient and modern. Or do you mention Princes Edicts and Churches constitutions to gloze with ours? Ours detest your Tenet, and you seek herein to wound Church and Prince: for how they hold of the Lords day, that it is directly grounded on the fourth commandment, appeareth in the Liturgy, in the book of Homilies, and in the Statutes and godly Provisions for redress of profanations. This is the Doctrine of our Church 
d Homil. of the place and time of prayer, part, 1. pag. 125. : By this commandment (speaking of the fourth) we ought to have a time, as one day in the week, wherein we ought to rest, yea from our lawful and needful works. For like as it appeareth by this commandment, that no man in the six days ought to be slothful, or idle, but diligently to labour in that state wherein God hath set him; even so, God hath given express charge to all men, that upon the Sabbath day, which is now our Sunday, they should cease from all weekly and workday labour, of these laws, to reject their commandments touching matter of work or service on the▪ Sabaoth or any other day.   

Answer.  
First, I might put off all this still, because it is upon this false ground that the Commandment of God doth not enjoin our Sabbath with the like. But I willingly go on with you, to see if there be one true stitch through your whole Discourse. And here before we come to particulars 
h Though the Laws of men should not take hold of servants in this case, yet the Laws of God do. , let all note, that that odious term and calumniating phrase of Servants rebellion against their masters is your own, and cometh from an evil heart, and crafty head. We teach, that Princes unlawful commands are not to be executed; yet we teach not, that any so commanded must rebel, but not obey, and be so fare from rebellion if it should be urged, that he suffer even to blood patiently, without so much as reviling, judging, or the like, but only committing his cause to him that judgeth righteously. But to come to your matter you hold: First,  
That the Church's Constitutions, and the Edicts of Princes never intended to forbid light and labourlesse work, nor do their censures take hold on men therefore.  
Secondly, against this, what the Doctrine of our Church is, you heard before, which taught, that God condemned all weekly and workday labour, all common business, and to give themselves wholly to heavenly exercises, etc. The doctrine of the Church of Ireland 
i Articles of Religion in a Synod at Dublin, 1615.  is consonant hereunto, which teacheth thus; The first day of the week, which is the Lords day, is wholly to be dedicated to the service of God: and therefore we are bound therein to rest from our common and daily business; and to bestow that leisure upon holy exercises both public and private.  
In a Council, 
k Concilium Matiscon. 2. c. 1.  in the year 588. it was decreed, that no work on the Lord's day be done, but the eyes and hands stretched out to God that whole day, and that if a Country man or servant should neglect this wholesome Law, he should be beaten with more grievous strokes of Clubs. For these things, saith that Council, pacify God, and remove the judgements of diseases and barrenness. And again, understanding while they sat in the Council 
l C. 4. , that some absented themselves from the Assemblies, they decreed under pain of Anathema, that on all Lords days all both men and women received the Communion.  
In another General Synod there was made this decree 
m Sancitum est, ut domini in suis ditionibus diebus dominicis prohibeant nundi●as annuas, & s●ptimanales, item conventicula in Tabernis, compotationes, alearum, chartarum & similes varios lusus, concentus, musicorum instrumentorum usum, atque choreas. Synod. general. Petricoviensis. Anno 1578. : It is ordained, that the Lords in their several dominions do prohibit on the Lords days the yearly and weekly Fairs, also meetings in Taverns, Compotations (or Gossip) Dice, Cards, and diverse the like sports, singing in Concents (as now many in merry meetings have their singing of Catches and their roar, as they are called) the use of musical Instruments and Dancing.  
In a Council at Nice it was ordered, that those who either kept Court, bought or sold, or otherwise profaned the Sabbath, should be prohibited the Communion, because that whole day we ought only to rest, and spread abroad our hands-in prayer to God 
n Toto hoc die tantummodò vacandum, quia toto hoc die manus Deo expandendae. .  
Canutus 
o Canutus lege 14. 15. , a King in this Land before the Conquest, enacted in a Council at Winchester, that Sunday should be kept holy, and Fairs, Courts, Hunt, and worldly works on that day should be forborn.  
Guntramnus 
p Praeceptio Guntramni ad Episcop. dat. in Concil. Matiscon. 2. , King of France commanded, that on the Lord's day no bodily work should be done, besides what was prepared to eat, to maintain life conveniently.  
Secondly, you affirm that neither constitution of the Church, nor edict of Princes, do free servants from their Master's power to command them to work, or their obedience to work at their Masters command that day more than others.  
Thirdly, what the Doctrine of our Church is in this point, is clear in the Homily of the place and time of prayer, delivered in these words; Since which time (meaning the time of our Saviour's ascension) God's people hath always in all ages, without any gainsaying used to come together ken 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, and 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 and obedience, and humility, and patience that must do it: and therefore he commandeth Christian servants to give their masters all honour, to obey them in all things, and to please them in all things, that so their masters seeing them more serviceable and profitable servants, and 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, and 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 and 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 self conceit leads not away, may soon discern) very fare 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 jesuites 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.   

Answer.  
First, here you would prove your Tenet, for servants obedience to their master's commands for work on the Lord's day, even work prohibited, to be more agreeable to the Apostles Doctrine, than the contrary: and to this end you allege Texts to prove their obedience in all things to all masters, at all times, and thence conclude the answerableness of yours, the unanswerableness of ours thereunto.  
First, object that you bring no proof of Scripture to confirm this your universal obedience at all times, viz. on the Sabbath day: though you should have done it, especially the doctrine of the Commandment touching cessation of work lying so fully upon the servant. If you reply that there is no exception of time: I answer, there is exception of obedience to unlawful commands, and such are works, otherwise lawful; enjoined to be done on the Sabbath: and so we have equivalent exceptions to that of time.  
Your ground therefore which you lay, and say it is founded on Apostolic truth, namely (that Apostles permit servants no point of liberty, but command them obedience without exception of master, of labour, or of time;) we thus impugn:  
The Apostles Doctrine touching servants obedience doth admit of three limitations by themselves expressed;  
First, it must be an obedience in the Lord; 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Scholia.  that is, according to the will of the Lord, in all things in which godliness may not be overthrown, in all things provided, that we admit of nothing against the Lord. If the master's covenant should cross the covenant of the servant, as he is a man and Christian to his God, it is sinful in the making; (if such should be made) and worse in the keeping, and always void ipso facto. The ground of this limitation is this, that all authority and superiority is derived from God, and subordinate to him; therefore the command of an inferior power binds not to obedience, when it is contrary to the precept of the superior power, as Durand 
o Durand. lib. 2. distinct. 39 quaest. 5.  well noteth. That therefore of Gregory touching wives, must be held touching servants for ever. 
p Sic placeat uxor voluntati conjugis, ut non displiceat voluntati conditoris.  Let the wife so please the will of her husband, that she do not displease the Will of her Creator. This limitation excepts the servants labour in servile work on the Sabbath, or Lords day.  
Secondly, it must be an obedience wherein they abide with God in their service, that is, in the observation of the Commandments of God, saith the ordinary Gloss; 
q Glossa interlin.  and saith Lyra 
r 1 Cor. 7. 20, 24 Lyra.  as fare as pertains to those things which are not repugnant to the state of Faith; thus also your doctrine is plainly condemned: for God hath provided by his unchangeable Law, that one day in seven the servants shall rest from their labour, and with their master attend on God, with whom there is neither master nor servant.  
Thirdly, yea, but the master commands him to work then, otherwise indeed he ought not? Nay, the Apostles doctrine hath yet a third limitation; That they be not the servants of men: Upon which place saith chrysostom? 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. tom. 3. in 1 Cor. 7. 23. pag. 362. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. pag. 363.  There are bounds set of God to servants, and how fare they ought to keep them, this is also ordered by Law: and they may not pass over them: for when the master enjoineth none of those things which are displeasing to God and disallowed, he ought to follow and obey; but beyond this by no means; for thus the servant is a free man. And if thou yield any further, although thou were free, thou art become a slave. This therefore he intimates saying, be ye not the servants of men. And not fare after he briefly expounds it thus ᵗ, Obey not men that command absurd things, yea, neither yield to their own selves. Are not these Commandments of the masters for servile work, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absurd and without place, and footing in God's Word? are they not of things displeasing to God? These, these are the servants limits, beyond which if he pass, he is the servant of men, even of men's humours and a very slave; because he hath rejected the freedom of a freeman to God and Righteousness. Can you see none of these limitations to restrain your boundless gloss.  
Again, the Apostles Doctrine admits of this limitation; That the commandment of the master, be of things possible, as well as lawful: and therefore Abraham's servant putteth the doubt, Gen. 24. 5. What if she will not come? And is in that case set free. Yea, it admits also of another limitation; That it be of things, though in their nature lawful, yet not exceeding so fare the strength of nature, that the servant so doing shall manifestly ruin his body: as to toil night and day; to toil all days, and not have a day in the week to take breath? Now tell me, doth not the law of Nature bound the master in respect of time?  
And as it hath these limitations, so it hath this distinction: servants own to their master's subjection and obedience: obedience is limited to their lawful command with the like; subjection reacheth to submission, to their wrongful and unjust corrections and usage, as in 1 Pet. 2. 18, 19 Be subject to your masters— for conscience towards God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. Even where the servant may not obey, he must be subject.  
Secondly, having thus cleared the Apostles doctrine, let us see what you say to prove your Tenet agreeable, ours disagreeable thereto.  
First, you take hold of the words in all things, to conclude, the servants yielding to the masters exacting of labour that day, to be no sin; for then say you, he would not command them to obey in all things, but would have excepted that. I answer, by the same reason you may conclude, the servants yielding to the master in any other unlawful commands to be no sin, because he is commanded to obey in all things without exception of that particular. But if you say, that is excepted in the former limitations; so say I, that this is also as hath been proved. Obedience of subjection the servant oweth to his master in unjust dealings with him, and the Apostles persuading servants of those days to such things, showeth that masters did wrongfully bind and buffet for well doing. 
n 1 Pet. 2. 19  Tell me, was it for working, or truth and fidelity, and not for piety and the worship of God? And therefore, may not I say with better probability than you have spoken, that it was for intermission of labour on the times of the holy assemblies? Will any correct their servants for performing the duties of the second Table, or the secret duties of the first? It must needs be then, that that wel● doing was public worship of God, for which chief Heathen masters buffeted Christian servants. And thus your very Texts have impliedly this particular in them, that servants should not do ill, or leave the doing well for the frowardness of the master, and not obey unlawful commands, but bear wrongful stripes, for thereunto are they called: & for piety & the duties of God's worship submit to the stripe, rather than quit the service of God.  
Now in that you say, it cannot be that the Gentiles that did not believe should respect religion so, as not to exact their servants work: I answer, they certainly did in that point of the Sabbath through a special providence of God and the inclination of soul to this law of nature, which is in part written in the hearts of all men: for S. Austin 
x De illis sanè Iudaeis cum loqueretur, ait cùm interim usque eò sceleratissim● gentis consuetudo convaluit, ut per omnes jam terras recepta sit, victi victoribus leges dederunt Mirabatur haec dicens, & quod divinitus agcretur ignorans, subjecit planè sententiam, quia significaret, quid de illorum sacramentorum ratione sentiret: ait enim illi tamen causas ritus sui noverunt, & major pars populi facit, quod cur faciat, ignorat. August. De Civit. Dei lib. 6. cap. 11.  tells as much, who relating the saying of Seneca concerning the jews and the Sabbath hath these words, truly when he speaketh of those jews; he saith, When in the mean while, the custom of that most wicked nation hath so fare prevailed, that now through all lands it is received: the conquered give laws to the conquerors. Speaking these things he wondered, & being ignorant what was wrought of God, he set down plainly his opinion, in which he might signify, what he thought concerning the reason of their Sacraments; for he saith, but they know the causes of their rites, and the greater part of the people doth that which they know not why they do it.  
See how the Sabbath had prevailed among all Heathen; In Seneca's days who lived in the time of the Apostle Paul, but what is that to the Lords day? Yea, thence easily you may gather how they could well afford one day in a week to worship: and Saint Austin in the same place saith, that though Seneca reproved the jews for losing a seventh part of their time in keeping Sabbath, yet would not mention the Christians to reproove their rites in any kind, lest he should either praise them against the received custom of his Country, or reprove them against his own heart. Note, it was (saith this Father) a special work of God, that the Sabbath should have that prevalency amongst Heathens. And for the Christians rites of worship, he could not speak of them but in praise, unless he should have gone against his conscience, and therefore silently passeth them over.  
But secondly, you affirm that their withdrawing of their obedience would have caused the name and doctrine of God to be blasphemed. I answer, their modest and humble refusal of the work, would adorn the doctrine and not dishonour it, and if they should forsake the assemblies, they forsake their God and religion, the Heathen well knew it, who were so observant in their superstition. It may seem by the Apostles rules given to servants and wives, that more of them were converted, than of masters and husbands, and the assemblies of the Lords day more constantly frequented of all that had given up their names to Christ. Now as the rendering a reason of the hope that was in them to the Magistrate, performed with meekness and fear, honoured God and his Doctrine; so the rendering of an account how they worshipped God on the day of assemblies, viz: the Lords day: (as may appear by the Apology of justin Martyr for them) who in that Apology, renders a reason of their worship of God, and of the day spent wholly in that worship. What the Apostle saith upon the Christians readiness thus to give a reason of his hope, may rightly be applied to the Christian servants readiness to yield himself wholly to God that day, and to render the reason thereof with meekness and fear: And who is that will harm you, if you do that which is good? 1 Pet. 3.  
But this submissive withdrawing; you term by the odious name of disobedience very wrongfully; for he is to be obedient to his lawful commands that day, and to his unjust corrections for the Lords sake, which will break the heart of any Master, and win him, but your course would take away the very practice of religion in the servant; for where is religion, if the public worship be gone? Nor will this deprive them of their service, but make them in higher esteem, as joseph was, and the famous courtier Daniel, for refusing to obey the king decree: when Parasites shall be loathed and cast out. Yet if this should not always be, the Spirit of glory and of God will rest upon him that suffers in these cases. If this be the blasphemy, we must avoid, we all are undone, while we are saith Tertullian ʸ, let his name be blasphemed in the observation, and 
Tertul. de Idolat. ca 14.  not the exorbitation of discipline, so long as we are proved, not reproved, this malediction of preserved discipline is the benediction of God's Name.  
This would propagate the Gospel; as in daniel's case is to be seen, and in the case of the three children.  
This is absolute meekness, obedience, humility and patience, and such servants for their virtue, and the profit that cometh to their masters, by their faithful service in the times and seasons due, and their unfeigned respect, even when they receive wrong, shall carry in the eyes of the vilest, high respects and praise; but if your course were held that the servant should neglect the assemblies to do his master's work on that day (we speak of works unlawful to be done on the Sabbath) and should carry an heart to God, while his feet and hands carried him to his master's work; (which is all one, as if one should swear with his tongue and think to keep his heart unsworne) then where is the solemn worship of God? And that gone, where is Religion? And that gone, what virtue? And that gone, what profitable service? Masters that respect but their own lucre, can con you little thankes for this doctrine. Besides, this were the scandal and defamation of the Gospel for ever; that whereas all Religions teach the followers thereof a time for piety with all attendance of body and soul for that time; this Christian Religion should teach that the servant hath no time at all, nor doth God require it of him, but the contrary, if his master will but bid him work.  
This can be no seminary of disturbance or contumacy, for he is subject to his master's power for correction; so as not to resist in wrongful sufferings: but yours showeth it manifestly while it leaveth a man in another's hands against two such principles, that when they have been by tyranny pressed to go against them, rebellion hath ever followed. The principles are these: First, God must be solemnly and publicly worshipped, and that on some times weekly in which he is to be attended upon without avocations. Secondly, that Nature showeth the preservation of itself. Now to go about to blot out sense of God & religion, & to keep men to tasks of insupportable burdens, which nature breaketh under, while it bears them, this is the ready way to overturn all.  
This alienates not masters from their Christian servants: let the experience of all ages show it. In this nation the servants that make conscience of the Sabbath are sought after by all sober and wise masters, that only are wise for the world: for these are those that will not be nightwalkers, nor drunkards, nor filchers, with the like. I know none but choose such, and greatly affect them, and for their fidelity otherwise and industry, give them great liberties for God's worship. True, I have heard of some of our Gentry that will by no means have such a servant, especially to wait on their persons, or to be their Clerks, but one may easily smell the reason, it is not for any matter of Sabbaths labour or rest; but, first there is a devilish principle amongst them, that it is for their reputation to have their men, such as will make the servant of their neighbour-Gentleman.   

Answer.  
First, that the subjection due to men in respect of obedience to execute their commands extendeth only so fare, as it may not diminish the empire of God, hath been sufficiently proved: but you call for antiquity to bear out the servant in refusing his master's commands of servile work on the Lord's day. I shown you before out of chrysostom, what he taught were the bounds which a servant might not pass, namely, the commandments of God: if the master command aught against them he may by no means execute his master's command. Tertullian 
b Tertul. lib. de Idolat. c. 17.  saith, that if a servant do but by some word help the sacrifice, he shall be accounted a minister of the sin of idolatry (he speaks of them as attending on their masters, and that the place, Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, binds no subject to keep the days consecrated to idols, nor to set up lights at their doors or Laurel branches on their door posts. And then saith further, 
c Ibid. ca 15.  it is well added, and to God, the things that are Gods. Unto which lay but that which went before in Chapter 14. 
d Ibid. cap. 14.  where he saith, the Ethnics have every festival day yearly once, the Christian hath his on the eight day, lay these together, I say, according to the true meaning of that Author, and it is clear, that the servant might not for his masters command keep a day in honour to an idol, nor any way be minister of that sin, nor might he neglect the day consecrated in honour to God, for his master. Clemens Alexandrinus 
e Clemens Alex. stromat. l. 4.  hath these words, Discipline is necessary to all sorts of men, and virtue, since all tend to felicity. And after quotation of the texts in Ephes. 5. Col. 3. and 4. He concludeth out of these, Therefore it is manifest to us what the unity that is of faith is, and is showed also who is perfect, wherefore the servant and the woman shall profess philosophy, be any against it and exceedingly resisting, although punishment hang ●ver their heads from their masters and husbands. The free man also, though the tyrant threaten death to him, though he be led to judgement and drawn to utmost torments, and run the hazard of all his goods and fortunes, shall by no means abstain from piety and the true worship of God, nor shall ever descent from it: the woman likewise which dwelleth with an evil husband, and the son, if he have an evil father, or the servant that hath an evil master, pursuing virtue with a valiant and generous mind. But as it is comely and honest for the man to dye both for virtue and for liberty, and for himself, so also is it for the woman, for this is not proper to the nature of males, but of good folks. Therefore both old and young, both woman and servant shall live, and if need be shall dye, being faithfully obedient to the commandments, which dying were but to be made alive by death; we certainly know both children, and women, and servants to have been no less than excellent oftentimes, their parents, and husbands, and masters being set against it. They ought therefore which would lead an holy life, not to be of a less cheerful and ready mind, when they see some to chase them from it: But it is meet much more that they contend and strive stoutly, that they fall not off, as conquered, from the best and most necessary counsels: for I do not think it may admit any compare, whether it be better to be received into the fellowship of the Almighty, or to choose the darkness of devils. Things which are done of us for others sake, we will always do, endeavouring to have an eye to them for whose sake they seem to be done, taking the measure to be, that which is acceptable to them: but things which are done rather for our own sake, than for others, shall be done by us with equal study, whether they seem, or seem not to please any man.  
Secondly, it is neither of my ability, nor beseeming a work of this nature, to allege all that might be cited here to this purpose, this shall suffice to show either your wilful blindness or daring presumption, upon your great reading. It is very dangerous to oppose the truth and to trust unto your oppositions of Sciences falsely so called: no man ever attempted it, but God polluted him in his gifts, in a just judgement. In this Treatise it may be seen, and in this particular passage. For Clemens Alexandrinus 
f Cle. Alex. st●o. 4. , justine 
g justin. Apel. 2. , Augustine 
h Aug. in Psal. 118. Co●●io. 31. , and almost all the ancients which published Apologies for Christians, testify that among other causes why the Gentiles persecuted the Christians, this was one, that they withdrew themselves from obedience to their superiors under pretence of Religion. Now this was only in matter of the public worship of the true God, wherein else did their disobedience (as they called it) consist? They worshipped the true God on his day, and refused communion with Idolaters on their days, dedicated to their idols: but this you could not see. You know moreover, that the histories of the first three hundred years are of little weight for their brevity, imperfection, and the iniquity of those times through rage of persecutors, and malice of falsifying Heretics and Seducers. Therefore your bold and large assertion herein is of little worth.  
Thirdly, had you remembered that there is the same proportion in matter of obedience in one sort of inferiors as in another, you might soon have known what servants did in those times towards their masters: for all Antiquity teacheth, that it is perverseness to call that obedience wherein the obedience to God is forgone to obey man, and that the superior of any sort is to be obeyed in whatever he commandeth that is not contrary to God's Command, not otherwise: Thus taught Hierome, Ambrose, Augustine, Fabian 
i Decret. 11. q. 3. c. 92, 93. to. 101. , Basil 
k Basil. reg. 7. ex brevi & 114. & 203. & 204. & de instit. Mona. c. 14. & 16. , Bernard 
l Bern. Epi. 7. & li. de precept. & dispensat. c. 12. , and the like. But Saint Austin 
m Serm. 6. De verbis Dom. & Ep 166. & in Psal. 124.  chiefly is most notable in this point, both for his lively expressions and instances, and for his reasoning from humane things to divine, where obedience is denied to the inferior magistrate, when it is contrary to the superior.  
Fourthly, I am sure godly superiors will never thank you for this doctrine, which cannot will to be obeyed of inferiors, if they command aught against God's Law and reason. Heathen Princes have refused such an obedience and desired the contrary, Antiochus the third wrote to the cities; that if he should command by letters any thing repugnant to the laws, they would not care for it, but take it as if it were written, he not knowing of it. Antigonus' king of the Macedonians answered a Flatterer, who said, All things were honest and just for kings to do; They are so only to kings of Barbarians; but to us those things only are honest which are honest; and just which are just. Pericles' answer is known, 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that a man ought to do for his friends but yet only as fare as he may not go against God.  
Fifthly, the Papists can see, where the light did put out your eyes: they teach 
o Possevinus. lib. 3. de stud. cas. Consc. c. 23. tom, 1. p. 147.  that the father and mother of the household which have servants and maids, sons and daughters, and do not see that they obey the precepts of the Decalogue, or which is worse, hinder them from the observation thereof, and work them so hard on the Eves, that on the Festivals and Lords days they are by necessity of their own in a manner compelled to work, or that give them not time to be present at the Assemblies, without promise of amendment they shall by no means be absolved of the Confessor. Molina 
p Molin. de inst. tract. 2. disp. 38. Col. 200. 201.  saith, that the power of the master over the servant reacheth not to his life, and much less to his spiritual salvation, as if he might command him or exact of him any thing that might fight against his spiritual safety. The Magistrate in this case is to vindicate the servant; if the master shall impose on the servants a necessity of sinning, the Bishops may deliver them from servitude. And Antoninus affirmeth in such case, 
q Antoninus' 3. par. titulo. 3. ca 6. §. 7.  the servant may lawfully flee from his master, if being admonished he will not leave off. We know it is better to suffer hard usage, than to flee, but see what master Breerwood might have known, to have set his heart at a stand, in his so forward and eager proceeding.    

CHAP. XXXIIII. Breerwood. Pag. 53, 54.  
ANd therefore Sir, to draw to an end (for I grow weary, and have already both dulled my pen, and myself) I would advise you in the Name of jesus Christ, whose Minister you are, and whose work you have in hand, to examine this doctrine of yours, what foundation it may have in the Word of God, and what effect in the Church of God; lest the foundation happily be your own fantasy, not God's Word, and 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 (as I am told) draw so freely as you. But I would advise you Sir in the Name of God, to beware betimes and 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, and if you hap to draw to the bottom, you will find the dregges 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 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 foresight, already to require divination: for who (when he seethe 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.  

Answer.  
First, now judge whether this Doctrine be the water of Marah, and besides all that hath been spoken, consider, that it teacheth no forsaking of God, nor disunion of soul from his fear; that were bitter 
r jer. 2. 19  indeed, your doctrine doth it. Consider, it teacheth no neglect of righteousness or judgement 
s Amos 6. 12. : but to yield subjection with patience, where it may not yield obedience, with a good Conscience: but you make the Lords day, that day of rejoicing to all Christians in the faith of Christ, with whom there is neither bond nor free, to be the servants bitter day, who left under the commands of the master, not to, but from the assemblies, lieth under a bitter famine of the word, 
t Amos 8. 10, 11  Whiles others have it; and vision falleth to him, and his Sun setteth at noon day, whilst yet it shineth in its glory to others: how will you escape that woe in Esay, Woe to them that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter 
u Esai. 5. 20. .  
Who those are that you say have good tastes I know not, the Publisher is one it seemeth, but he was not then known to you, one may probably conjecture: how ever he will not willingly be known to have this good taste; and it is not unlike but many more are of this sort, that drink your sweet waters secretly, and cry Master Breerwood was right for his judgement, but they would not teach it publicly for a thousand pounds. This calls to mind the intoxicated fool in the proverbes, 
x Prov. 9 17.  that saith, stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.  
Secondly, and for your Meribah, this I say, if your writing were not intended to this end, certainly the publishing is: It is no new thing to hear Christian Doctrine charged for seditious, and disturbing both Church and state; but it is much audaciousness and perverseness to charge this doctrine so, which having been taught, and printed, and found in the hands of the whole kingdom, 
y 〈…〉 ley on the Sabbath. D●. Bound. D. 〈◊〉. M. Atte●s●l on Numbers.  never bred the least disturbance in any family. But you will not divine of the event; no? You do both censure and divine, and then say you will not. You would exasperate authority against painful and conscionable Ministers, you would suggest hard things against the quiet of the land, you would cast jealousies causeless. You would do more than divine, if Divines were under your power. I spare to say more, only I desire all to weigh whether the fruit of your Tenet can be any other than disturbance and sedition: for;  
First, it casts servants (and by the same reason all inferiors) under an unsupportable burden, which hath always sons 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 and 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, and 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 far you well, and the Spirit of Truth be with you.  
May 16. 1611. At Gresham house in London.   

Answer.  
This is your Conclusion, which hath in it three things; a provocation to a polemicke Discourse (if he be able to justify his Doctrine) urged, from the duty of a Minister, which is twofold; to defend his Doctrine, to reduce his straying brother; and from your challenge. Secondly, a request of two things in the Answer to this his Treatise, ingenious reply to the force of his arguments, and material arguments against him. Thirdly, an Adjuration (upon sense of the falsehood of the Doctrine, or inability to justify it) to make up the breach of his Kinsman's conscience, and restore him to his Master's obedience. The provocation is sufficiently answered in the Letter, printed at the end of your Treatise, which by the Publisher is termed, An answer to the Treatise: but he might have well seen it was an answer only to this provocation. Here he shown a spirit of calumniation, and a love of all devouring words, like a false tongue. And how strong an answer that is hereunto all may judge, that, (considering with what a spirit Master Breerwood hath replied) cannot but know with what an heart he both writ, and provoked that patiented man to contend: especially if all knew also what he wrote unto Master Ratcliff, Alderman of Chester, his Cousin, the ninth of june, 1611. One passage of which Letter I annex out of that Letter which I have with me, in the original under his own hand. It is this: If I satisfy not Master Byfield, I would desire him to satisfy me, by answering my reasons, and producing better to prove his own conclusion. The one or the other must be done (now he hath provoked me to stir) or else some blemish will stick by him. If he answer my arguments sound, and there by effectual reasons establish his own Doctrine, I have soon done, he shall satisfy and silence me, I will presently yield, and withal both love and praise him: but if he be not able to do it (as I suspect he is not) and will yet persist in the fancy, I shall both detest and despise his pertivacy, and perhaps displease him in the end.  
The request was satisfied in an answer of Master Nic. byfield's, written to him then, which had been published here if we had met with a perfect Copy; in the mean while take this answer tendered to public view. The Adjuration savours of strong and strange audaciousness, as shall appear by the occasion of all this stir in this man's spirit, which in the beginning of the Treatise he layeth down, viz. the wound in the conscience of one john Breerwood, by Master Nic. Byfield. First, it is evident, those works he stuck at, were never in question. Secondly, it is manifest by the Letter of Master Breerwoods', written to the abovesaid Master john Ratcliff, that the servant confessed, that he received the first touch at Master Bruens of Stapleford, but his conference after with Master Byfield was it that resolved him. And yet it is clear, that there was never any case propounded to him at Chester about servants work on the Sabbath at Master Ratcliffes, and he never to that time delivered his opinion touching it unto any. Thirdly, it is no less clear, that the occasion was foolish and weak, as shall be manifest, by giving to all the world a true information how the case then stood with this john Breerwood, which I give you in the next Chapter for a conclusion to this first part of the book. Happy had it been for him, if   

Answer.  
For the occasion, three things will lively represent it to the world; a brief relation concerning the condition of john Breerwood at that time: secondly, the comparing of some passages in Master Breerwoods' relation with the former: thirdly, the beginning of Master byfield's answer to this Treatise, containing a short and satisfactory answer to this particular.  
First, this was the true state of things concerning john Breerwood at the time while these things fellout. john Breerwood was servant and Apprentice to one Master Thomas Shipton Grocer in Fridaystreet, in the Parish of Saint john the Evangelist: He was employed by his Master on business to Chester; and going down, he fell in love with a Maid that accompanied him down at the same time. Whereupon when he returned (as was manifest by the consequents) he cast in his mind which way to wind himself out of his Master's service. For the attaining of his disordered desire, when yet he had not spent half the time of his Apprenticeship in his Master's service, he made therefore many scruples; some about the Sabbath, pretending his conscience had been much wrought upon by Master Nicolas Byfield in that his foresaid journey; some about his calling in the week days. About the Sabbath, when his Master bade him fetch a pint of wine, or see his horse have provender, or call the invited Guest to dinner, he would refuse to do it: which thing his Master (supposing it had been indeed upon some trouble of conscience) with joy related to the Minister of the parish, M. Walker, and thereupon sought means to bind and retain him the faster in his service: for his Master was a conscionable and religious man, and careful of the Sabbath, and hoped that here would begin the discovery of some good wrought in him, who before was many ways untoward. But this john Breerwood saw, that this would take no place, he casts other scruples about the works of his Calling, to get off that way, by his pretexts of the evils he saw attended Trades in the City: and this turned not off his Master from his desires to retain him, but rather increased them the more. Afterwards, perceiving that Religion pretended wrought against his intended plot, and not for it, he fell to impudent and vile stubbornness. On a time, his Master, for some stubbornness of his, gave him a box on the ear: then he found out this project; to lay his Dagger under his pillow; that when the maids should find it there, and relate it to their Master, he might conceive he had some intent to play some vile part; and being a timorous man, might be moved to turn him out of his service. After this, his Master upon his earnest desire, sent him down again to Chester to gather up moneys; who there gathered up to the sum of an hundred pounds, or thereabout, his Master fearing to lose it, gave way to his motion to leave his service, and set up for himself in Chester, that so he might get his money of him. This john Breerwood thus released, married the former woman: and since, putting her to shift for herself, hath been to and fro beyond Sea, and hath played many pranks.  
This Relation was taken from Master Walkers mouth, March 30. 1631. as a brief of those things that might be more largely set down: the Christian Reader for his further satisfaction, if he desire it, may inquire of him who was very well acquainted with all those passages.  
Now consider with me some passages in Master Breerwoods' Relation:  
First, he saith, the true cause of his distemper was a Case of Conscience about works on the Sabbath; yet he saw, that at the first discovery of his strange alteration, were discovered obstinate resolutions, by fair or foul means to forsake his service. He is little skilled in the plight of a wounded conscience, that can think such a conscience, and such obstinateness are compatible to the same man at the same time.  
Secondly, he talketh of his Masters great offence; yet this was no other, but that as one joyed to see he made some show of conscience in that thing, he sought all means to tie him the faster to him and his service.  
Thirdly, he talketh also of his Kinsman's affliction: What? From such a man as was so mild as his Master was?  
Who can believe that this matter about his Kinsman was any more than an occasion, no cause in truth of Master Breerwoods' attempts? some thing there was beside this, as rightly he acknowledgeth.  
And to put it out of doubt, hear M. Byfield speak after long silence under these injuries, beginning his Treatise thus,  
LO (Sir) I am become at length a Writer. Your strange bitterness, and great thoughts of heart, have wrung from me that resolution, which once I thought had not been in the power of man to urge me to. The Lord make it prosperous, if it be his will, or else give me more patience hereafter to forbear employment, where I can go about it with so little hope of success. I writ not while I writ: Partly because the discharge of my calling commands me to labour other ways, and partly because my judgement is not every way resolved of the expediency of an answer in this kind. One thing I am sure of, that I can be contented to seal the Doctrine of the Sabbath, as it is now taught in the Church of England, with my blood, and conceive there is as apparent reason for it, as for any other point of Religion. Thus much I easily grant upon the reading of your writings, that if your places of invention had been as sound, as your form of elocution is fair, and the matter had been answerable to the style, you should easily have had my voice for the Chair amongst the truly learned: but when I consider of your assertions concerning the Sabbath, unmasking them, and without the varnish cast upon them, I cannot but see cause to lament, that such Talents and Gifts of God should be hidden in such earth. One point of wisdom you have learned from the men of this generation, that when your cause is too weak to endure any strong assault, you would help it by choosing you an Adversary, whom you could contemn as many ways none of the ablest, that so you might enter into almost all the degrees of triumph before any field was pitched. But let not the Champion pride himself, the stones of the Brook that refresheth the Sanctuary of God may smite the forehead of his presumption.  
In your writings I consider matter and manner. In the manner I find strange scoffs, unchristian censures, confident, bold and swelling brags of the clearness of your Conceits, with an unseemly deal of such unsavoury stuff: all this I wholly pass over as unworthy to be conceived in the breast, or vented in the writings of any Scholar. The matter is both propounded, and of purpose repeated many times over in several tricks of elocution, the better to give a lustre to opinion itself. The repetition I omit likewise. In the propounding of the matter two things are principal, fact and opinion. In matter of fact you are troubled, that your Kinsman should be seduced, and ruined by the poison of ill advice sucked from my mouth. This you would be answered in. And to this you have been answered, that it is a falsehood raised by your Kinsman (if he affirm it) and magnified and blown to the highest by yourself. And you do well to hold fast the pretence of your opinion, that such counsel was given, or else I cannot see so much as a glimpse of any colour, why you should in this spiteful manner use me, or any Minister of the Gospel, when you have no occasion given you. And so you may be answered as touching matter of fact.  
Thus fare Christian Reader, thou hast Master N. Byfield● Answer to this Treatise, the rest had been printed, and I had saved my labour, if we had had a perfect Copy: It is likely they that set forth Master Breerwoods' have one, which they conceal, and put in stead thereof a Letter written to Master Breerwood, refusing on good grounds to give an answer, which they call, Master byfield's answer. So indignly every way hath that worthy man been used in this business.  
Out of this that hath been set down, I leave every one to judge of the occasion, and of the spirit of the man. solution, they are abundantly discovered: his knowledge, in those brief grounds for the Sabbath which he hath laid: his zeal that (sweetly guided) stifled that fire of contention beginning to flame, so that it broke not forth; and therein no small measure of charity to the soul of the Opposer, which being resty and set to contend, wanted but one to answer, that matter might be ministered for him to work upon: and to the souls of all, when these boisterous winds should be kept in their dens of privacy, and laid with a short and grave repulse. What want of zeal for the truth could there be in this case, when the opposition being private, was dangerous only to the Opposer, and if he should make it public would have raised an holy Army of defendants, in both the famous Cities and other parts of the Kingdom, to the great impeachment of the Opposers reputation, who disperseth his lose and Atheistical conceits upon an occasion occasionlesse? Or what want of Charity? It never commanded to attend the saying of every Prater, nor requireth more than reprehension 
● joh. 1●.  of the error with arguments to confirm the truth; this is Direction. There may be never the less zeal for the truth, where is wanting a zealous affectation of quarrelling about the truth: and there may be no want of charity, where yet the erroneous person remains unreformed.  
What impressions of excesses his letter contained shall be seen, God willing, in time and place convenient. But this I say, your excesses not only swarm in your Reply, but also in this Preface stand out to the view. For you say, you are hopeless of him, and yet you will provoke him to give satisfaction and to disclaim his error. Would not satisfaction and disclaiming of an error answer your hopes? Or delight you to provoke to give that which you cannot hope for, only that you might provoke? What? Hopeless if he cannot be provoked, and hope enough if he be provoked enough? What? Nothing satisfaction with you, but to call the truth error, when you call it error? Again, you intent you say, to abate his stomach and high conceit: Would you abate it by invectives, scoffs, Alehouse language with the like, such as is scattered in this Reply? In this case therefore I hold it no way against just and plain dealing to give an answer to your words that have any show of truth and soberness, and by no means to put down verbatim your words Syllabicall froth, before this my ensuing answer. For though while you seemed to seek satisfaction to your arguments, I could afford you the first place, yet now that you jeer at the person, and think to scoff out the truth held by my dearest Brother, I can give you no place in my books.  

The first Section of the Reply answered.  
First, herein Master Breerwood being charged by Master Byfield, that he opposed God's Sabbath, cryeth out (Fare be it from him: he acknowledgeth the Sabbath of jews and Christians to be both of them God's Sabbath.) Compare then, what he saith here, with what he said in the former Treatise, and believe your own eyes.  
Here he saith: I acknowledge on the Christian Sabbath the worship of God, and vacancy from all worldly affairs which may impeach that worship, to be by the moral Law.  
Before he said, pag. 42. The celebration of the Lords day can with no enforcement of reason be drawn out of the morality of the fourth Commandment. Is not the Lords day the Christian Sabbath you speak of? And is the celebration thereof any other than the worship of God thereon, and vacancy from labour that may impeach that worship?  
Pag. 37. To work on the Lord's day, is no breach of any divine command.  
Pag. 33. Only works of toil, and tending to gain, are restrained by the commandment.  
Again, he saith, he never taught worse of God's Sabbath enjoy himself? No, the ᶜ Lord rested on the seventh, that he might teach thee to rest the seventh. Or did God ever consecrate to himself either day or place for any other cause, than that he might b●stow sanctification and benediction on men, when they did in an holy manner observe them?  
God's personal sanctification of the Sabbath, say you, was nothing else but his resting in himself, that resting from creation was his Sabbath, that resting in himself, was the sanctifying it, other institution or sanctification will never be proved.] Tell me, why did you not go on in your new interpretation, and show how he blessed it, and wherein that consisted? The Text saith, He blessed it also. Those that hold against the antiquity of the Commandment of the Sabbath, that it was not given to Adam, yet give no such interpretation of those words, God sanctified the seventh day. Not Master Broad, not Doctor Pridea●x, not Gomarus, not Tostatus and Pererius, nor any that I have met withal, but they make it an institution by anticipation, of which afterwards yourself perceived it was too bold an assertion, to say, that the ever blessed Creator laid down a Law for himself, with apromise of blessedness annexed; and therefore confess, that both Gods resting and sanctifying of that day were exemplary to men, though you would not they should be obligatory, till the commandment in Sin and Sinai. But what then have you done? If the Sabbath be instituted in Paradise, as you acknowledge from that place in Gen. 2. and this be exemplary to men, as likewise you confess, how can it be less than obligatory to men, though it be not delivered in a form of words expressly mandatory. God's action which he would have exemplary, cannot be less than obligatory.  
Secondly, but you say, this sanctification might be in destination ordained then to holiness; but not to be applied till the time of the Law.] Was it ordained then to holiness? It was not then at man's liberty to spend it to other employment, than that to which it was ordained. God's preparation of a time to sanctification, 2000 years before it should be sanctified, is without example, intimation in any Text, or solid reason. Had he ordained it then to holiness? What God hath sanctified, why call you it common? or how can you think that Adam and the Patriarches would make it common?  
The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (say you) signifieth a preparation as well as an actual application to holiness] I could tell you that the word is used both in way of praise and dispraise, as Rabbi David Kinchi observeth; is it therefore to be taken in dispraise here? But to close with you, the word signifieth to prepare, apply it now to the seventh day, and it noteth that God blessed and prepared the seventh day above other days of the week to be set apart to rest, and the memory of the great work of the Creation, that so piety and religion for ever among posterity, Gentiles aswell as jews might be nourished. Had this been driven out of use among the Holy Seed as it was among the Gentiles, Satan had soon thrust on them also, as he did on the Gentiles, the fiction of the world's eternity, and had blown away as all memory of the Creation, so also all faith and true piety out of the minds of men. Now such a preparation which is the actual separation of a thing to use, is not of destination but present readiness, and such is the preparation this word signifieth, as may be seen in Rabbi Mardochai nathan's concordance. When this word concerns holiness (for sometimes it signifieth preparation in general, as in Micah 3. 5. to prepare war) it signifieth to make holy, Leu. 21. 23. to declare holiness, Ezek. 39 27. to set a part to an holy use, joel 1. 14. to command that it be sanctified, Exod. 13. 2. But to destinate aforehand without present and actual separation of the thing so soon as it doth exist and is capable of that to which it is separated (which must needs be your meaning) hath no warrant of Scripture or Author that I know of. For those places in Exo. 19 10. Iosh. 3. 5. and 7. 13. As they all mean by sanctifying, to sanctify by command that they be sanctified, so they speak not of a Destination of them to sanctity, or a preparation without actual application to holiness, but a present sanctifying themselves that day that they might be the fit for attendance on the Lord: it is not read thus in Exo. 19 10, 11. Sanctify them against the third day, but, sanctify them to day and to morrow, and be ready against the third day. So true is it also of the Sabbath, sanctify this Sabbath, and the next Sabbath and every Sabbath. It is senseless to talk of a preparatory sanctification without application, that were to separate to holiness, and yet to let it lie common. Kades in Galilee joh. 20. was sanctified, that is, separated for a City of refuge; was it only destinated, and not actually set apart to that use?  
Besides, all those sanctifications are of persons, not of times: was there ever a set time sanctified, and the time not separated to sanctity actually?  
But what do I fight with suppositions; you say it might so signify, not, it doth so. How many interpreters ancient and modern do say, it doth signify, to command that it be sanctified?  
Thirdly, you go on to a third evasion, and say it might be a command and institution by anticipation, showing why, not when God instituted the Sabbath] That cannot be, because Moses makes an Historical narration of the creation, according to seven day's time, and in every day distinguisheth it by its proper work, and coming to the seventh he saith, that was Gods resting day, which was not inferior to any of the six, because God wrought no eminent work of Creation thereon, but extolled above them, because it was not a day of empty rest but enriched above the other, and advanced by God's blessing and sanctifying of it (that is) he ordained it a time of greater and more holy works, and crowned those works with richer fruit, Esa. 58. 14. and did choose it above the rest to an holy use. And that he then sanctified that day, both the connexion of the words showeth, and the words of the forth commandment, in six days he made all, he rested the seventh and therefore blessed it.  
This Anticipation never came into any man's mind, who was not first anticipated with some prejudice about the observation of the Lords day; the jews never dreamt of it; and in the new Testament, no such thing is taught or intimated. The Authors of that opinion yield it is probable that the seventh day, was observed from the beginning, Zuar. de dieb. festis. Moreover there can be produced out of Scripture no example of such an Anticipation; there is an Anticipation of the names of some places, with the like, but not an anticipation of an institution. Besides the perfection of the creation on that day, is twice joined with the Sanctification of it, in the same manner and phrase, in which the creation both of man and of other living Creatures is joined with the blessing of them, Gen. 2. 2, 3. with Gen. 1. 21, 22, 27, 28. The new Testament confirms our Text which teacheth that the people of God partake in the Old Testament of 
d Heb. 4. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  a twofold rest in this life, the rest of the Sabbath, and the rest in Canaan; but David speaking in the 45. Psal. of a rest, speaketh not of the Sabbath rest, for that was from the beginning of the world, nor of that in Canaan, for that was passed; therefore of a third rest he must needs speak. Lastly, the Prophet gathered a perpetual Rule and Law for marriage, from the first example in the creation of married persons, Mal. 2. 15. Made he not one? And wherefore one? Because he sought a godly seed. So here, did not God rest the seventh day? but why the seventh? that we should sanctify to God the seventh. Yea, but the Prophet made no such collection. Yes such a one, though not that very one. And a greater than that Prophet, God himself puts into us that very collection, when he saith that he Rested, and that he blessed and sanctified this his resting day.  
Fourthly, you would make good your conceit, by showing the needlessness of such a command, when there was no toil to the body nor distraction to the mind, that called for Rest or sanctification one day in seven.]  
There was labour in Paradise, Gen. 2. 15. And therefore there might be need of a Rest. There was danger of sin in Paradise and therefore need of some special time by God's ordinance; and that time blessed of him, to uphold the sanctification of the soul. If you reply, there was no such toil in labour; I answer, it was no toil to God to work the six days, and yet God rested the seventh.  
Besides, God that knew man's estate, knew reasons for his commandment; and therefore it is ill divining against the light of God's truth.  
And if it had been but a commandment of trial, man ought to have obeyed.  
Fifthly, hitherto of the eversion of your Tenet; now for the Text in Gen. 2. 2, 3. That the true sense of the words is this; The Lord blessed the seventh day; that is, he appointed it to be a Fountain of blessing to the observers of that day: and sanctified it.] That is, Commanded it to be set apart by men from common businesses, and applied to holy uses. That this, I say, is the true sense, not only the Hebrew and Greek words do both give, but the universal opinion of Divines, ancient and modern.  
Cyprian writes thus 
e Cyprian. de Spiritu Sancto sc. edition. Pamelianam. Antuerp. 1589. ; This sacred number of seven obtained authority from the creation of the World, because the first works of God were made in six days, and the seventh day was consecrated to rest, as holy & hallowing, honoured with the solemnity of abidding, and entitled to the Spirit, the Sanctifier. Epiphanius speaketh thus of those words in the Gospel of Saint Luke; It came to pass on the second first Sabbath 
f Epiphan. advers. Haeres. lib. 2. tom. 1. contra Hares. Anoet●n Haeres. 51. , that the first Sabbath is that which was defined from the beginning, and called so of the Lord in the Creation of the world, which returneth by circuit according to the revolution of seven days, from that time until now: but the second Sabbath is that which is described by the Law.  
Origen answereth Celsus objecting against the History of the Creation, that God, like some Artificer that were wearied, should need a resting and vacation, in this manner 
g Origen. contra Celsum, lib. 6. fol. 81. : Truly this man seethe not, after the creation of the world, as soon as the world was made, what a one the day of the Sabbath, and of God resting, was, in which both men rest to God, and keep this day a festival unto him, which have dispatched their works on the sixth day: and because they let pass nothing that is urgent, they ascend by contemplation to the feast day of the just and blessed men.  
chrysostom unfolds the Text in Genesis thus 
h Chrysost. tom● in Gen. serm. 10. sc. edit. Savilianam. : What is this; and he sanctified it, he separated it? Then the Divine Scripture teaching us the cause also, for which it is said, he sanctified it, addeth, because in it he rested from all his works which he began to make. Now hence God giveth to us darkly 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  this instruction, that we set apart, and separate one day in the circuit of every week to the use of spiritual things; for, for this cause did the Lord finish all the fabric of the world in six days, and honouring the seventh with his blessing, sanctified it.  
Hierome was of the mind that the 
k Hieron. tradit. Hebr. in Genes.  Sabbath was instituted in the beginning, who reprehends the jews idleness on their Sabbath and empty rest, in which yet they gloried, from the example of God, who in the beginning wrought on the day which he blessed, and so broke the Sabbath in the jews sense.  
Learned Mercerus upon this place, following the choice and greatest Lights, saith, I doubt not but by the first fathers before the Law this day was solemn and sacred, God himself being their teacher, etc. That the people of God might know that the Fathers observed it not of themselves, but as taught of God to retain them in the exercise of God's worship.  
Athanasius 
l Athanas. de Sabbat. & circumcis.  also giveth his voice, Who showeth that that seventh day had its observation among all men of those generations from the creation to the resurrection of our Saviour.  
Augustine was of this mind: When God (saith he 
m August. ad Casul. epist. 86. ) sanctified the seventh day, because in it he rested from all his works, he expressed not any thing concerning the fast or dinner of the Sabbath.  
The Fathers alleged by Gomarus, that plead the Sabbath was not kept by the Fathers before Moses, as justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus and Eusebius are to be understood of the Ceremonial observation thereof, and so the Fathers were no observers of the Sabbath as those ancients rightly maintained against the jews, and we readily subscribe unto it: and that they thus meant is apparent by some passages in their foresaid books. justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Tryphon the jew saith, Neither think ye it grievous that we drink some warm thing on the Sabbath, seeing God also governeth the world on this day in like manner as he doth on other days. And Tertullian in his book against the jews saith, That the temporal observation of the Sabbath ceaseth, as it is a type. Irenaeus also affirmeth in his book against Heresies, lib. 4. c. 3. That the precepts spoken by Gods own voice receive not diminution but increase by our Saviour's coming, which precepts, he saith, were natural, liberal, and common to all. And in his 30. chap. of the same book he saith, That the godly Fathers had the substance of the Decalogue written in their hearts and souls, and had in themselves the righteousness of the Law.  
Beda therefore upon the sixth chapter of Luke, maketh a distinction between the observation of the legal Sabbath, and the liberty of the Natural Sabbath, which till Moses time was like other days. See, he acknowledgeth a Natural Sabbath under those first times of liberty.  
annex to these the jewish Doctors. Philo thus openeth the Text; 
o Philo de mundi opificio.  After that this Universe was perfected according to the perfect nature of the number of six, the Father added honour to the following seventh day, which when he had praised, presently he vouchsafed to call it holy. For it is the feast not of one people or Region, but of all universally, which alone is worthy to be called a popular festivity, and the birthday of the world. Broughton in his consent of Scriptures allegeth Ramban upon Gen. 26. fol. 46. And Aben Ezra upon Exodus the twentieth to prove that the Lord appointed the seventh day from creating to be an holy rest, and that the fathers observed it before Moses. Peter Matyr allegeth 
p Pet. Mart. ●o●. in Genes.  Rabbi Agnon for that same point.  
Thomas Aquinas interpreteth it on this wise, q he sanctified it, that is, he deputed it to sanctity; for he willeth that the Lords day be kept holy of us, & therefore that especially we be also vacant to God's holy worship, and in it and the memorial thereof, we call to mind the continual benefit of our creation: and therefore in the old law it is commanded that on that day we cease from servile works, that we may intent more freely God and his divine worship, whence that day is called, Sabbath, which is the same that rest it.  
Selneccerus saith, that 
r Nicol selnecceri. Com. in Genes.  God would by this very sanctifying of the Sabbath, institute a certain worship, in which mankind even in innocence (that is, although Adam had not falled) should publish the goodness of God, and celebrate worship acceptable to God, when as other things on other days were to be looked unto. And then he giveth four causes or ends of the institution of the Sabbath, It was instituted, First for rest. Secondly, for the excellency of man. Thirdly, for the upholding of a certain worship. Fourthly, and for the testimony of immortality. And here saith he, Children may learn the answer of that School argument: the Apostle in Col. 2. bids, that none judge in respect of the Sabbath days: therefore we are not to keep a Sabbath. Answer the antecedent: Paul speaketh of the ceremony and the observation of external circumstances; he speaketh not of the general or the principal meaning of the precept, and the final cause thereof, which is natural and unchangeable. This Author calleth our Sabbath, the Sabbath of Redemption.  
Marius is full in this thing, 
s Marius in Gen. 2.  He blessed, that is, he consecrated it to his blessing to be kept of men, and sanctified it; not as if he estamped holiness on it, but because he appointed it to his sanctification and praise, and to the holy conversation of men. Because with the Hebrews, to sanctify is the same as to separate from pollution: a day is said to be sanctified, in which we ought to be separated from pollution. It was made presently from that very day of the World, as the letter showeth; a positive precept given to our first Parents concerning this thing, which they passed over to posterity by tradition, as in the Church, the celebration of the first or eight day is passed over: for since it is of the Law of Nature that some time be peculiarly insinuated for the worship of God, it was meet, that that should be determined in the very beginning by a positive law, whence even among the Gentiles, the Religion on the Seventh day was famous.  
Beza affirmeth 
t Beza paraph. in job 1. 5.  of job, That as oft as his children had made an end of feasting one another in their several houses, he sanctified them, and offered burnt offerings according to their number, but notwithstanding there is no doubt but that the daily worship of God was diligently observed, beside in this most holy family, at least every seventh day was carefully sanctified, as God from the beginning of the world had appointed.  
This blessing, saith reverend Calvin, was nothing else but 
Calvin. Com. in Gen. ca 2.  a solemn consecration, whereby God claims to himself the studies and employments of men on the seventh day. First, God rested, than he blessed this rest, that in all ages amongst men it might be holy: or he dedicated every seventh day to rest, that his example might be a perpetual rule.  
Moreover, we must know, this exercise is not peculiar to one, either age or people only, but common to all mankind. Wherefore, when we hear that by Christ's coming, the Sabbath was abrogated, this distinction must be taken too. What appertains to the perpetual ordering of humane life, and what peculiarly agreeth to the old figures, that the Sabbath figured the mortification of the flesh, I say was temporal: but that from the beginning it was commanded men, that they should exercise themselves in the worship of God, deservedly it aught to endure even to the end of the world.  
Hereunto agree, Zuinglius, junius and Tremellius, Vatablus, 
Vrsin. Catech. Bulling. in Rom. 4 5. & Decad. Danaeaeth. Chri. l. 2 c. 10. Bertram. pol. judaic. c. 2.  Vrsinus, Bullinger, Danaeus, Aretius, Piscator, Bertramus, Hospinian, Chemnitius and Zanchy: who after this sense given upon the words of the Text in Genesis, delivers his opinion of the manner of keeping the first Sabbath. I doubt not (saith he) but that the Son of God 
Hospin. de orig. templ. li. 2. c. 14. Chemnit. loc. Theo. de lege Dei. Zanch. de hominis create. l. 1. c. 1 sub finem libri.  taking on him the shape of man, was busied that whole seventh day in most holy colloquies with Adam; and that he did also fully make himself known to Adam and Eve, and did reveal the manner and order which he had used in creating of all things; and did exhort them both to meditate on these works, and in them to acknowledge their Creator, and to praise him, and that by his own example he did admonish them to employ themselves in this exercise of godliness, setting all other business aside; and also that they would so instruct and teach their children. To be short, I doubtnot but that in that seventh day he taught them all Divinity, and did hold them busied in hearing of him, and in praising God their Creator for so many and so great benefits. To this interpretation I am led by these two reasons: The first, taken from the Sanctification of the Sabbath which God hath prescribed in the Law: the second, because Adam ought to understand this sanctification of such a day: therefore it is probable that the Son of God did open this unto Adam and Eve, both in plain words, and by his own example. For even God also is said to rest upon that day, and in Exodus, he doth exhort to the sanctification of the Sabbath by his own example: therefore he did sanctify it with Adam and Eve. Of this the Son of God gave us a show: for having finished the works of our re-creating or Redemption, being raised from the dead, he conversed with his Disciples, appearing to them through forty days space; and speaking the things that concerned the Kingdom of God, and fully instructing them, and teaching profound Theology; not so much with words, as with the efficacy of the Spirit: He so rested from both works, that he ceased not yet to teach men, and instruct them in the true worship.  
The time would fail me to tell of our English worthies, famous Western Lights, that teach all this Truth, as Willet, Perkins, Greenham, Babington, Bound, Gibbens, Dod, Scharpy, Esty, Williams, with many more: Behold what a cloud of witnesses do compass us about.  
For further confirmation, consider that place in Exod. 16.  
For first, before all mention of Moses Law concerning the Sabbath, it is storied that the People gathered on the sixth day twice as much bread, two Omers for one man; which 
Vers. 22. 23.  thing was observed by the Rulers of the Congregation, who came and told Moses of it. To what end was this, but that they might apply themselves wholly to the observation of the Sabbath the day following?  
Secondly, the very phrase and words of Moses, in giving admonition about the Sabbath in vers. 23, is such as clearly showeth that Moses spoke not of the Sabbath, as some new thing unheard of; but calls to mind the ancient sanctimony of that day, which they had been compelled to neglect of late in Egypt, through Ph●raohs cruel taskmasters. This is that which the Lord hath said: Tomorrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.  
Thirdly, the very command of Moses appointing them for after times to gather twice as much every sixth day as they did other days; and giving this reason, on the seventh day which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none: 
Vers. 26. 29.  showeth that Moses himself was mindful of the Law of the Sabbath, delivered from Adam to the Fathers. Out of this Text than it is evident, that the Sabbath was from the beginning.   

The third Section answered.  
Unto the Argument of Master Byfield, for the mortality of the Sabbath, taken from the manner of giving this Law, by lively voice on Sinai, and by divine engraving in Tables of stone, by the finger of God, and therefore differenced by the Lord from a ceremonial Law, which were all given mediately by Moses; and from Gods own testimony by Moses, that it is one of the Ten words, or Ten Commandments: you make here such an answer as doth not once come near the force of the argument. It became say you, one of the Ten perpetual words then, when it was given on Mount Sinai; for the moral part perpetual, Thou shalt sanctify the Sabbath; for the ceremonial part not perpetual, Thou shalt sanctify the seventh day for the Sabbath. If it became so, because engraven by the finger of God in Tables of stone, than that part, thou shalt sanctify the seventh day for Sabbath, is so, because so engraven. If it became so but then, that sufficeth us that have lived ever since, and those that shall arise after us to the end of the world. But this that you affirm, that then, when it was delivered on Sinai, it became one of the perpetual words, hath no warrant in Scripture, allege the place: nor in reason; for as the other nine Commandments became not then first perpetual, though than first delivered in form of laws, no more did this. Were they perpetual, because written in Tables of stone, and not rather, because perpetual, so written? This also is strange, that you say, that the moral part of the commandment, Thou shalt sanctify the Sabbath, (as you will have it) became but then on Sinaia perpetual word. Was not obliging from the beginning, and written in the heart, that there should be a vacant time for the worship of God? If you deny it; See your own confession in pag. 24. of the Treatise.   

The fourth Section answered.  
That place in the fifty sixth Chapter of Esay, vers. 4, 5. 
Vers. 2.  affords a strong argument against you; for there the Christian Sabbath is prophesied of, as that which every mortal man, every son of Adam, that would be blessed, must keep in obedience to God. It is therefore an ordinance of God, charged in the fourth Commandment, and no Command of men. The strangers and Eunuches there spoken of, were not such as became proselytes under the law, but Christians under the Gospel. You object that the privilege of Sons and Daughters was not tendered to strangers, and so Master Byfield mistook the Text. This is but a cavil, the intent of the Prophet is to show that the legal rules about strangers and Eunuches shall not, in Christ's Kingdom where they are abolished, hinder their election and choice into the number of his people; but any of all sorts are accepted with God, that thus take hold of his Covenant: The Prophet expressly pronounceth them blessed, v. 2. therefore it can be no wresting of the Text, to say the stranger shall be a Son, and the Eunuch made joyful in the house of prayer; nay if you take the Promise applied in v. 5. to the Eunuches exclusively shutting out the stranger, how doth it answer so well the stranger's objection, who said, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people, vers. 3. You object further, that the  offerings and sacrifices mentioned in vers. 7. have no place in the New Testament; therefore the Text must be understood of the time of the Old Testament. You might as well say that that place in Malach. 1. 11. is not spoken of the New Testament, though it be said, God's Name shall be great among the Gentiles, from the rising of the Sun, to the going down thereof. Because it is added, In every place incense shall be offered, and a pure offering. Christians have their  offerings and sacrifices, Rom. 12. 1. Heb. 13. But you say, that then all the chapter must be understood in a mystical sense, and so of a mystical Sabbath. This consequence is utterly infirm, as may be seen by that Text in Malachi forecited; and that conceit of a mystical Sabbath cannot have place here, for these are made distinct, to keep the Sabbath from polluting it, and to keep the hand from doing any evil. verse 2.  
To speak fully, there is no one word in Scripture that speaketh of a mystical Sabbath: for what is spoken of a 
* Heb. 4.  Spiritual Sabbatisme concerns our rest in Heaven, and not a Spiritual Sabbath on earth; and to say that servile works condemned in the fourth Commandment are no other than sins, or sins at all, is nothing but an Allegorical sporting with God's Word; for sins are not unlawful on the Sabbath only, but always, and in all places: nor doth the fourth Commandment intent to give a prohibition of all sins; though it is true, that in some sense sins receive an high aggravation when they are committed on so holy a day. Esai. 58. 4.  
Now how this mystical and spiritual Sabbath of yours should serve to this purpose which we intent, I know not, they are words of a disjointed mind.   

The fifth Section answered.  
Concerning the authority that translated the Sabbath, you say it is certain, that the translation thereof was actually and immediately prescribed by the Church. Deal ingenuously, and show me where; if in Scripture, than I answer that it was not immediately prescribed by the Church; for the Apostles were not Authors of the institution, but Ministers of Christ, and penmen of the holy Ghost. If in Ecclesiastical writers; I answer they all refer us to the Apostles and the Scriptures. This opinion therefore is so fare from certain, that it is certainly false. You say again, that certainly Christ never gave his Apostles particular charge of Instituting a new Sabbath, either while he conversed with them on Earth, or afterwards by Revelation. How know you this? The Apostles delivered many things that the Evangelists did not set down, nor themselves expressly say they received them from the Lords mouth; that they concealed Christ's Command from the Church, that is, this particular expression in so many words, that Christ commanded it: this makes to prove it was given them in charge by Christ, for else when the Apostles enjoined it, they would have said of that their injunction, as of other things, 
x 1 Cor. 7. 6. 12. 25.  We speak this by permission, not by commandment: we have no commandment of the Lord, but we speak our judgement: Herein speak we, not the Lord. This institution then (to use your own language of a new day of solemnity, in stead of the old Sabbath) was of the exigence and necessity of the Apostles commission, not of the liberty. The Apostles did nothing in ordering the Church, but from 
joh 14. 26.  and by Christ; either by precept, or by example, or by divine inspiration. It is out of question, they had special warrant from Christ in express charge, when you compare together their precept and practice with those two Texts, Math. 28. 20. Act. 1. The first enjoining the Apostles to teach what he commanded, and to teach and baptise, in which ordinances teaching such things, he would be with them to the world's end. The latter declaring that Christ spoke the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, to his disciples in those forty days before his ascension. For all that you say therefore, it is certain the Sabbath was translated by the same authority that first commanded it?   

The sixth Section answered.  
First, concerning that place in Matth. 24. 20. first, you affirm that it is understood by all Divines of the old Sabbath; by all the ancient without exception; by all the latter for ought you know.] Can you know the judgement of the Ancients to be such, because they held that there was a transgression of a law, in hasting their flight on the Sabbath? Did they hold, think you, that the fourth Commandment was in force then, for the sanctifying of the jews Sabbath? Or was there any other than the fourth Commandment, which could be transgressed by flight on the Sabbath? Hierome saith, That our Saviour bid them pray that their flight might not be in the winter, nor on the Sabbath day, because in the one the extremity of cold forbids to go to the wilderness, and to lie hid in mountains and deserts: in the other, there is either the transgression of the Law, if they be willing to fly, or imminent death, if they abide. Thus runneth also the ordinary gloss; and what a vain boast is this concerning the judgement of the Ancients, when they all almost give no other interpretation of that Text, than what is Allegorical? as Origen, Austin, and others.  
Many later Divines by Sabbath understand all inconveniences of flight caused by the necessary and enjoined attendance on God's worship. This little favoureth your opinion, and most understand the place of the Christian Sabbath.  
And that this is the proper sense of the place, will be manifest to him that observeth three things: First, the persons to whom these words were spoken, viz. to the Disciples privately, and apart on the Mount of Olives, vers. 3. Secondly, the time, immediately before his death, he spoke of that which should fall out forty years after. Thirdly, the intent of our Saviour, which was to show the great evils should then come to pass, and the miserable exigents the enemies should put them to. Now, if it be not spoken of the Christian Sabbath, what force could there be in our Saviour's speech saying, pray that your flight be not on the Sabbath; who hereby intended to signify that it should be a singular grief to them to fly on that day. If the Sabbath had not been in force, what vexation had it been to the Disciples to fly on that day more than any other: nay, it had been an argument of comfort, and our Saviour might have showed them then, that it was a singular mercy of God to them in such straits, that now they were rid of the obligation to the Sabbath, and so might fly on that day, as well as any of the rest; otherwise they had more need to have prayed for knowledge to see their liberty in Christ, than to pray that they might not fly on such a Sabbath, as should bind them but only in their own conceit.  
Christ in this place acknowledgeth this day as His: for it is manifest that this flight happened about forty years after, when the jewish Sabbath was gone: As therefore when God gave to the people the Law of the Sabbath on Mount Sinai, He said, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy; so the Lord jesus in the Mount of Olives, commands that they should studiously remember even in their Prayers, the Christian Sabbath many years before, lest when the calamity came, its holy rest should be intercepted with the noise of warlike tumults, and with a tumultuary slight.  
Secondly, you say, that to fly fare off on the Lord's day in case of necessity was never held unlawful, but on that Sabbath it was.] If it were not unlawful to fly on the Lord's day in such cases, doth that make that it is not inconvenient, and a grief to a Christian heart, to be forced that day to forgo the worship of God, and miss the Lord in his ordinances, and to taste that day of his heavy wrath, in which he expects and uses to taste of his comforting and satiating blessings? It was not unlawful to fly in the winter, yet it was needful to pray, that this flight might not then be; and was it ever unlawful in case of danger to fly on the Sabbath? Have you forgot all while you eagerly pursue your own fantasy? The jews hold that being set upon by Thiefs or enemies, it was lawful to fly that day, as Rabbi Thanchuma teacheth in Ilmedenu. 83. 4. the old rule amongst them is known to all, Peril of life driveth away the Sabbath; and as well known is their practice in the Maccabees.  
The sabbath-days journey, was not an allowance in case of danger, and a stint set, beyond which if they went, their judicial laws condemned them to death; as you ignorantly avouch.  
Thirdly, you say that the name of Sabbath was never applied to the Lords day, by any Apostle or other Christian, for many hundred years after Christ. The Apostle in Heb. 49. doubted not to apply the name of Sabbath to the Christian people and our rest, saying, That the People of God, have their Sabbatisme left unto them.  
Yet admit your strong conceit had been as strong a Truth, what would follow thence? That our Saviour intended our Sabbath in that place of Matthew, because the Apostles call it the Lords day? In no case. For to use the name of distinction in times of the Church, wherein the Saturday was called Sabbath, cannot either make the Apostles faulty, or the name of Sabbath incompatible to that day.   

The seventh Section answered.  
First, that at the time of the siege of jerusalem all ceremonies 
Zuares de l●gib. l. 9 c. 19  of the old law were deadly you deny, and we affirm: (for if our Saviour's death be not the time of the ceremonies deadliness, you confess you lost your labour to the one half of your Reply hereto; indeed St Hierome sets that for the period, but you have not answered one of his arguments: but (to let that pass) the term prefixed is this; Look when the Ceremonial law was dead throughout the whole world, it began at the same time to be deadly also through the world: now the ceremonial law was dead when the Gospel was published, for that obliging the other ceased to oblige, and that published, the other was utterly evacuated: Therefore in that point of time in which a sufficient promulgation of the Gospel was accomplished, instantly the old law was deadly. This you partly saw; when you said in this Section; and not only dead they were, but deadly also (I confess) to Christians, to whom he was certainly revealed to be the Saviour. This time was before the eversion of jerusalem as the Apostle testifieth in Col. 1. 6. that the Gospel was come unto and brought forth fruit also in all the world, and proclaimeth to the Churches that the Ceremonial law was deadly both in that Epistle to the 
y Col. 2. 20. 21. Gal. 5. 3, 4. & 4. 9 10. 11.  Colossians and in the Epistle to the Galathians.  
Secondly, for your assertion about the old Sabbath, that it did remain and was observed in the East Churches three hundred years and above, after our Saviour's death: it is utterly false, that it was observed either jewishly, or as a Sabbath, or in Obedience to the fourth Commandment. No: such observation was Anathematised in the Council 
ᶻ Ignat. ad magn.  of Laodicea, and Ignatius charged those Christians to work that day. If you mean this observation was the performance of some religious duties publicly, than you might say every day in the week was observed religiously by them: for that is known that many of the Greek▪ fathers, as well as the Latin, preached every day, and 
a Aug. januar. Ep. 11●.  Augustine tells of diverse customs in the Churches, Some communicated at the Lords table every day, some some certain days, some on the ancient Sabbath and the Lords day, some only on the Lord's day. But you must needs intent the jewish observation of the Sabbath, for these words you add: all ceremonies therefore, and particularly of the old Sabbath at the time by you mentioned, were not deadly.  
Thirdly, and when you say that the name of Sabbath was not given in the Church to any other day than the jews Sabbath for more hundred of years than three hundred, Augustine saith 
b Serm. de temp. 251. , So we also sanctify the Sabbath: the Lord saying, Ye shall not do any work therein.   

The eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth Sections answered.  
In the eighth Section you set forth slanderous reports of Master Byfield, which you took in by retail, some about his Doctrine concerning late repentance: of this the Church of England knoweth his wholesome propositions, imprinted in his books on the Coloss. and on the first Epistle of Peter.  
Some about his Discipline, as you term it, but those in and about Chester know his doings in and out then among them.  
In the fourth page of the Treatise, you tell of Rebellion against men's laws and mischiefs to the commonwealth; and in the 53. page, that few drew so freely of this vessel as he; all which cannot agree to a resolution of a private case: and those words wherewith Mr Byfield chargeth you and you deny, viz. that this doctrine tended to the corrupting of the estate where your kindred and acquaintance and yourself had lived, are express in a letter written, june the ninth, 1611. Therefore he justly charged you for charging him unjustly in these respects, and did not calumniate you. And whereas you say that the doctrine of the Sabbath which you opposed, was not for pulpits but for Corners, you might have known it hath sounded in pulpits, and is in print by diverse Divines. This of the ninth Section. But what do I? indeed these nor the other Sections contain nothing worthy an Answer. The hands are joined with scorners, and the replies borrowed from wicked men, let them alone.   

The thirteenth Section answered.  
That you did adjure Mr Byfield, which yet you deny, will be manifest if your form of speech in the end of your Treatise, and the nature of an Adjuration be compared together.  

* Zauch. in tertium precept. de adjuratione.  An Adjuration is an action in which in the Name of God, or by his Name either we require an oath of any one whereby he should bind himself to do or not to do something: or we bind him to it by command or entreaty without an oath exacted, and that our desire may be more surely obtained, we interpose the Name of God.  
Your words are these, 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. True, here you require not an oath to bind him to this: yet you require it with an interposition of the Name of God, and a denunciation secretly of God's anger, if he do it not, and so you fall under the second kind of Adjurations.   

The fourteenth Section answered.  
Here begin Mr byfield's reason's, why he would not yield to answer the Treatise though adjured: Mr Breerwood would refel them.  
Take M. byfield's words together and they are a sufficient reason, for every strangers vain challenge ought not to be answered. Now this challenge of M. Breerwoods' was vain, because the Injury was but a Conceit, no Reality, and the doctrine of M. Breerwood abundantly answered in Writers at his hand. Thus all M. Breerwoods' words are to no purpose, and a mere beating of the Air.  
By the way note M. Breerwoods' Parenthesies (no man less curious or inquisitive of other men's affairs) (neither was I ever greatly inflamed with ambitious heat) they contain in brief large justifications of himself, but how rightful, this Treatise and Reply do manifest; let one instance serve, here he requireth a reason for the injury and harm done to his Nephew and him for vexing his Conscience, and to confess the error and injury, and in pag. 95. he confesseth and retracteth his own error in judgement and manners for provoking Mr. Byfield about this point.   

The fifteenth Section answered.  
To this reason that Master Breerwood sought more victory than truth, Master Breerwood replieth that victory will attend truth. I answer, it will, but one that seeks victory more than truth, will run over truth to reach at victory: and that in your writing it may be seen you sought victory more than truth, appeareth, for else you would have answered the arguments found in the writings of Divines in these cases about the Sabbath. And whereas you ask, If Master byfield's zeal to truth, be not as fervent to truth as your affection to victory, if it should not, it is no more than that which is found ofttimes in the best, but his zeal was at least as fervent, though not attended with an itch to misspend it.   

The sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth Sections answered.  
Master Breerwood undertakes to give him warrants to warrant him in this work, which Master Byfield pleads he could not find; To which I answer, All his warrants warrant not a Minister to leave the Instruction of his charge to write confutations of a private opinion, that infecteth neither his charge nor the Churches of Christ, no, not where the contending party liveth: the case is altered, now this Treatise hath broken prison.  
Master Byfield was no lover of contention, neither by nature inbred, nor by custom purchased, and the Woe to them by whom offences come, is the woeful portion of them that give the offence. The Doctrine of our Saviour was an offence to the covetous, envious, proud, hypocritical and blind Pharises; but yet no woe, I hope, to him for that: Herein this Worthy man was conformed to Christ, and yet is now more conformed. God's Children suffer not all their afflictions while they live. Both these reasons therefore are good and reasonable.  
Furnishing with gifts is not always enough to make an inward calling to a particular action, there must be the seasonableness of the Action, the evidence of good to issue from such an Action, some sufficient notes of God's separation of that man to that Action; for all that are able are not presently inwardly called to an action, and in a word, 
d Rectè facit animo quando obsequitur suo; quod omnes homines facere oportet, dumid modo fiat bono Plaut. in Anplitr. malè respondent coact● ingenia. Senec. Psal. 31. 18.  a man's inclinations which may not be forced, and if they spring not from a corruptroote aught to be heeded next to abilities. Master Byfield then, though able might not find himself inwardly called.  
How fare M. Byfield was from Enthusiasms (with which you charge him proudly, contemptuously, and falsely, as always lying lips can speak grievous things against the Righteous) let all testify that knew his preaching, and yet may see it in his writings: no man ever so exact in keeping close to the express Word of God, so free from venturing or upholding matter of opinion.   

The nineteenth Section answered.  
Master Byfield pleads needlessness of his Answer, and referreth Master Breerwood to Master Greenham: he replieth Master Greenham impugneth not any of his Conclusions. No doth? Let us try the matter.  
Master Breerwood teacheth our Sabbath day to be an ordinance of the Church. This Master Greenham impugneth as the Doctrine of the Papists, pag. 129. Master Breerwood teacheth that light works were never forbidden on the Sabbath, and that the rest for strictness was ceremonial. Master Greenham teacheth that light works are forbidden in the fourth Commandment, as light oaths are in the third. pag. 162. (sl●ight in keeping the Sabbath and full of sleight oaths) and that the rest of the Sabbath is as needful for us as for the jews, pag. 136. Master Breerwood teacheth that servants have not the Commandment given to them, and that they are for labour equal in subjection unto beasts. Master Greenham teacheth that no lawful calling) and such is the servants) implieth any necessity of foregoing the worship of God on the Sabbath: and that to make the servant equal to beasts on the Sabbathis to haste to hell, not thinking whither they are going, pag. 163. your reasons also are answered most of them in that Treatise of Master greenham's.  
That weak, shall I say, or wicked taxing of Mster Gareenham, that his affection was better than his judgement, abundantly testifieth the pride of your spirit. But this is usual with the lose Atheistical. spirits of our times, to account of all they call Puritans, for no great Scholars.   

The 20. and 21. Section answered.  
These give sufficient testimony of Master byfield's modesty and wisdom, and of Master Breerwoods' bold brags and rash censures, and therefore I turn them over.   

The 22. and 23. Section answered.  
That Master Breerwood would disquiet God's people, (as Master Byfield chargeth him) was apparent (though he gainsay it) for he sent the Treatise to Master Ratcliff of Chester unsealed, with these words in his Letter with which it was sent: I have left the Treatise unsealed, that you might, if you please, read it and after make it up, and as soon as you can deliver it. And afterwards in that Letter he giveth him instructions in the reading of it, to read with leisure and attendance, with the like: I have the original of this Letter, dated june 9 1611.  
And that Master Breerwoods' opinion is private, is clear, because no man ever so interpreted the commandment touching servants, save himself; and how ill it agreeth with the renour of the commandment, let the indifferent judge by the answer I have given to this Treatise. When you say therefore, that those determinations of yours have every where resounded in the Church of God, this is false, unless the Papacy be the Church, or Anabaptists and Familists: For what if Master Broad, and two or three more make a clamour, is that sufficient to make the Doctrine public. The public Doctrine of the Church of England I have showed out of the book of Homilies and the Communion book, and all other famous Lights in our Church. For my pains I look not for thanks from your side, much less such a reward as a 1000 of books worth a 1000 French Crowns.   

The 24. Section answered.  
Master Byfield would that Master Breerwood should should have spared his verdict about the fitness of Doctrine that should be taught till he had charge of souls, Master Breerwood saith not so, Ordination conferreth outward ability to exercise the function of a Pastor or Doctor in the Church, but no inward ability: This is somewhat of truth, but not all the truth, for it causeth more advised thoughts for the people's edification, it conferreth a special interest in God's promises to ministers, in the discharge of their function, which are not few, or of small effects.   

The 25. Section answered.  
What a childish exception is this, Lastly after finally. Can not you sue that finally ends the reasons against your demand and challenge of an answer, and lastly concludes the letter? Your spirit would not have spared Paul but have given him a jerk if he had stood in your way. In the Epistle to the Philippians he saith finally my brethren, chap. 3. vers. 1. and again, finally brethren, chap. 4. vers. 8.  
Why charge you him of singular boldness to Deceive others, when yet yourself never saw but one soul infected, namely your kinsman, pag. 80. And there too your sight failed you, and yourself acknowledged it a little before in pag. 95.  
And where is your zeal or charity to hide such a precious truth as you thought this to be, and not to impart it to others for their good?   

The conclusion of the Answer to the Reply.  
But it may be the Publishers zeal & charity was great and good, he would not bury such a piece: His zeal, to the law to fire out one precept of the decalogue, & make God a liar who said, with lively voice ten commandments, he gave his charity, to servants that they might be under their masters, and not under God's command upon the day of the Dole of God's grace and blessings chiefly spiritual. His zeal to the Lord Christ, so great as not to afford him his right in & royalty over his own day. His charity to M. Byfield that in such a distance of time found best opportunity to vent this hasty, yet dead, rotten, and forgotten birth. His charity to the Church, that she should be the Donor of such a gift out of a plenary power to elevate it to its Dignity, worth and use, and then bestow it on the lord His zeal to his own promotion in the Church, for can any think it some pure love to Master Byfield, and not rather to his own ends? Balaams' wages would guilt even Balaams' way. But I hope he will find no Balaks in this famous Church. His zeal and charity to Master Breerwood, that would have none of his writings perish; no not this which himself had buried in oblivion, or else entombed his own faith and promise before himself was interred: for see, I produce thee here a letter of his own hand writing, imprinted after the original word for word, which runneth thus;  
To my approved very good Friend and loving Cousin, Master john Ratclyffe, Alderman of Chester, at his house in the North-gate-street, give this with speed. At Chester.  
GOod Cousin, I hearty salute you, and your Wife, and little Ones, and beseech Almighty God to bless both you and them. I have received the money by grange with your Letter. For the twenty pound I have sent my Mother an acquittance here enclosed, which I pray you to deliver her. There was thirteen pound over, which I delivered to my Nephew Robert, and willed him to have the like care of your discharge. I hearty thank you for your care and pains in my behalf, about the sending of that money. Touching my Nephew john, whether he justly charged Master Byfield or no, (the one affirming, and the other denying it) let the just judge of all men, and of all causes determine, to whose sentence, and the testimonies of their own consciences I leave it. Notwithstanding, I think I had good reason to persuade me, it was as my Nephew 
a I think he should have believed Master Byfield, before his Nephew.  said; For, first, I saw he loved and respected Master Byfield very much. Secondly, as it seemed, it came from him somewhat unwillingly, as if he was a afraid to procure Master Byfield any displeasure. Thirdly, other Chester men reported the like opinions to have grown in their servants, and they laid the blame on him 
b That vile aspersions were cast on Master Byfield at Chester by many lose persons there, most unjustly and causelessly, is a thing well known. . Fourthly, I perceived by Master byfield's late letter, his judgement was, that works on the Sabbath (those at least that might imply breach of Sabbath, whatsoever works those were) ought not be performed by servants, albeit their Masters commanded them: Confounding, as I thought, many things unskillfully, which should more carefully be distinguished. As first, the persons to whom, and the persons of whom the commandment was given. Secondly, the works which servants do of their own free motion, and those which they do by their master's imposition. Thirdly, the Lord's day (in relation to God's commandment) with the old Sabbath, as also the breach of Sabbath, with breach of the commandment of the Sabbath, and the like. And although you remember not, for your part, nor my Cousin your wife, the proposing of any such case at your table, where he saith it was done 
c Those at the Table testified, there was no such Case proposed and answered, yet Master Breerwood will by reasons persuade himself there was. : yet it is like he should best remember it, whom it nearest touched: that it should, I say, have deepest impression in his remembrance, as it found deepest impression (as it seemed) in his Conscience. Yet whether in truth the vexation of his conscience, were the cause of that distemper, or he made (as you say) a stratagem of religion, to cloak some other secret devise, I am not able to determine, but must refer it to him that is the searcher and judge of all secrets. But yet I should be sorry he should add that horrible hypocrisy to his other sins. And yet 
d This that follows overthroweth the force of all his former reasons, and evinceth that Master Ratclyffs conjecture was more probable than M●ster Breewoods.  as I dare not accuse him, so neither am I able perfectly to clear and excuse him of it, for (notwithstanding the outward show and pretence, he continueth to make of religion more than ever he did) I saw withal his disobedience, his disquietness, his impatience, his self-conceit, his contempt of his friends and their counsel, not to be continued only, but increased: Evil ensigns indeed as it seems to me, of a sanctified and religious heart, knowing, as I do, the fruits of God's spirit, to be meekness, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, and such like, which can not inhabit with the other in one soul. God's holy will be done in him, whose mercy I daily by my prayers solicit for him, and in the infiniteness of God's mercy alone is all the remainders of my hope. Now touching the difference betwixt Master Byfield and myself, the prosecuting whereof you earnestly will me to cease, you shall obtain of me, Cousin, to cease, were it a greater matter, so there proceed from him no further cause to provoke me. Evil I wish him none at all, not the falling of a hair from him, although I have freely reprehended that, which I took to be amiss in his Doctrine by my first letter, and in himself by my later, which I hope 
e Note his desire to have that base reply to come to Master Byfield, after he saw cause to mistrust his cousin's wickedness and dissimulation, and yielded to cease the contention.  afore this, you have received and delivered him. If my writing relish of too much sharpness contrary to my ordinary disposition, the grief I conceived of my Nephew's misdemeanure, of which I know no other occasion, and his refusing to satisfy me, where I had reason to require it, and his returning me in stead of that satisfaction, hard language, were the causes of it. But seeing he hath not the mind, or (as you say) the leisure to yield me that satisfaction, which I wished, and which I should have endeavoured to have given him on the like occasion; and withal I see you so desirous to appease the quarrel 
f There would then have been hot work if Master Byfield, would have given the second blow. , I am content to leave all as it is. Let him satisfy himself, and I have done. Yet thus fare withal let me, if not justify, yet excuse my passion to you Cousin, who have some Nephews of your own, and know the condition of my Nephew, how hard it was to bring him into a good course, and how apt he was to run into an ill, being withal a fatherless and motherless Orphan. Imagine, I say, how the ruin, or great likelihood of ruin 
g Suppose it had been so indeed as you conjectured, how could his ruin have followed any way serving such a Master as you have heard in the answer to the occasion. Chap. 36. and making conscience of such a commandment of God.  of such a One, having the like relation to yourself, that that Youth to me, and being left by his dead Friends to your care, would have affected you: or how this case of this very Youth, would have affected his Father, or Grandfather, if they had been alive. But howsoever, I remit all with all my heart. Master Byfield 
ʰ Note this speech▪  shall never hear more of it from me. And so I would advise him also, to lay aside all rancour and bitterness, and in the Name of God proceed in the Ministry and service of God. As for me, he may without any impeachment, notwithstanding this, or any other dislike of mine. Concerning the sending of his letter back, out of which I charged him with some points; I must entreat you to give me some respite to advise: for in my last letter to him, I have charged him with these points, wherein, while I have the letter, I am able to justify I have not wronged him: but if the letter were out of my hands. I stand at his courtesy for the imputation of a slander, in charging him with that, which I cannot (the letter gone) be able to prove. But this I will promise & assure you Cousin, on my honest word, which I never have, for aught I know, and never will by the grace of God break with you, that his letter shall never turn him to any prejudice at all, and therewith I pray you rest contented till I can otherwise determine. The other letter of my Nephews to your wife, I am forced also a little to defer. Master Shipton cannot yet find it, yet he is assured it is in his Countinghouse, and promiseth she shall assuredly have it, on his next leisure to search it out. I am glad with all my heart of the son God hath given you: Whom I beseech to send you more, to increase your comfort more, and to bless this he hath now given you, with long life, and with the grace of his holy spirit, which may ever grow up with him. To God's goodness I commend you all, in much haste, july 27.  
Your ever true and assured loving friend, Edward Breerwood.  
M. Breerwood kept his word: but the more hath this Publisher wronged him. He shown in truth neither charity nor zeal in venting this book so long after the decease of these two learned men, & in this striking at the repute of a grave Divine, that through indignity cast on his person, vility might steal one his writings, which will prove more lasting than pillars of Marble, and in essaying to overthrow the Authority, and so the duties of the Lords day. What reward shall be given to him, that durst presume to remove the Churches old landmarks? Shall not these learned men deceased, rise up in judgement against him, as against one that raked in their ashes, who in their life bare, the one of them, strange provoking, with such modesty and wisdom; and concealed, the other of them, wrath and contention, and quenched it when it began to fire in his face.     
FINIS.