A
TREATISE
OF
THE
SABAOTH
WRITTEN
BY
Mr
EDWARD
BREREWOOD
to
Mr
NICHOLAS
BYFIELD
preacher
in
Chester
.
SIR
I
am
but
a
stranger
vnto
Iohn
Brerewood
dwelling
in
this
Citty
,
but
borne
in
that
,
whom
his
Father
&
Graundfather
,
when
they
left
this
World
,
left
very
young
.
And
left
he
was
especially
to
my
care
,
who
am
his
vnckle
.
That
youth
I
placed
here
in
London
,
to
serue
in
condition
of
an
apprentice
:
and
placed
he
is
with
a
man
of
so
good
religion
report
&
trade
,
that
if
I
might
haue
picked
him
a
master
in
the
whole
City
,
I
thinke
I
should
haue
chosen
none
before
him
.
In
this
mans
service
hee
hath
spent
two
years
and
more
,
and
(
God
shewing
him
,
and
in
his
behalfe
me
also
more
mercy
then
either
of
vs
deserued
,
)
I
began
to
receiue
comfort
of
him
after
some
sorrow
,
that
his
former
vntowardnes
had
caused
,
and
to
recouer
good
hope
,
after
my
former
doubt
and
feare
;
but
yet
for
all
this
,
Gods
good
pleasure
it
was
to
abate
this
contentment
of
mine
,
and
by
the
youths
new
follies
,
to
bring
me
into
new
perplexities
,
for
being
not
long
since
sent
to
Chester
about
his
Masters
businesse
,
he
returned
againe
so
strangely
altered
,
that
I
haue
seldome
seene
in
so
short
a
time
so
great
a
change
.
For
so
deiected
he
was
in
his
countenance
,
so
dull
and
wretchlesse
about
his
businesse
,
so
alienated
quite
from
his
master
,
and
so
obstinately
resolued
(
whether
by
faire
means
or
by
fowle
)
to
forsake
his
seruice
;
that
I
was
not
fuller
of
sorrow
to
see
him
so
changed
,
then
of
wonder
to
imagine
how
he
became
so
.
And
yet
the
care
and
paines
I
tooke
by
the
endeavour
of
my selfe
and
of
my
friends
to
recouer
and
to
resettle
him
,
was
equall
to
both
,
and
so
much
more
they
were
,
because
I
laboured
to
cure
a
disease
,
whereof
I
could
not
perceiue
the
cause
.
For
the
pretences
which
at
first
hee
made
of
the
vnablenesse
of
his
body
and
toilesomenes
of
his
seruice
,
I
know
were
but
fained
excuses
,
or
else
complaints
of
lazinesse
,
as
being
assured
that
there
are
20000
in
this
City
of
lesse
bones
,
that
make
noe
bones
of
greater
labour
.
But
the
true
cause
of
all
this
distemper
,
fell
out
to
be
at
last
a
case
of
conscience
(
and
full
glad
I
was
that
the
case
proved
no
worse
)
then
that
he
had
such
feeling
of
conscience
,
(
for
I
had
imagined
sundry
others
)
although
it
grieued
me
not
a
little
,
to
see
his
conscience
so
seduced
,
and
the
point
that
pricked
him
was
this
:
his
Master
on
the
Lords
day
sent
him
forth
sometimes
on
arrands
,
as
to
bid
guests
,
or
fetch
wine
,
giue
his
horse
provender
(
which
last
his
Master
remembreth
not
that
euer
he
bad
him
past
once
)
or
about
some
other
light
businesse
.
&
he
was
instructed
(
he
said
)
that
to
doe
these
things
or
any
other
worke
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
owne
disposition
,
but
only
in
obedience
to
his
Masters
command
;
yet
was
a
sinne
and
transgression
of
Gods
commandements
touching
the
Sabaoth
,
and
that
he
was
not
bound
to
yeeld
,
nay
that
hee
sinned
against
God
in
yeelding
obedience
to
euery
such
commandement
of
his
Masters
that
day
,
which
by
the
precept
of
almighty
God
was
wholely
precisely
consecrated
to
rest
and
the
service
of
God
.
To
this
effect
(
he
told
me
)
he
was
instructed
when
he
was
in
Chester
and
that
you
Sr
were
his
chiefe
instructer
,
out
of
which
doctrine
he
deduced
(
as
naturall
reason
rightly
taught
him
to
doe
)
that
he
ought
in
such
cases
to
reiect
the
comcommand
of
his
Master
and
in
no
sort
to
performe
it
;
which
because
he
could
not
doe
without
his
masters
great
offence
,
and
his
owne
affliction
,
he
saw
no
other
course
to
be
taken
but
to
forsake
his
masters
service
,
that
so
becomming
his
owne
Master
,
he
might
not
be
commanded
to
sinne
,
against
God
:
Which
resolution
of
the
young
mans
being
so
peremptory
,
and
obstinate
,
as
for
a
time
I
found
it
to
be
,
if
it
moued
me
both
to
melancholy
and
anger
who
can
iustly
blame
me
?
For
I
saw
not
only
a
poore
youth
(
my
neere
kinsman
)
entangled
with
the
conscience
of
another
mans
sinne
,
(
if
it
be
sinne
)
but
withall
his
vtter
ruine
for
his
condition
in
this
World
hardly
ventured
,
his
Master
wronged
,
his
friends
grieued
,
and
my selfe
especially
indammaged
,
that
am
in
bond
deepely
ingaged
for
him
:
and
yet
this
was
not
all
that
inwardly
afflicted
me
,
but
some
thing
there
was
beside
that
might
well
stirre
as
patient
an
heart
as
mine
to
indignation
;
Namely
because
I
perceiued
this
doctrine
of
yours
,
(
whereof
this
resolution
of
his
proceeded
,
and
his
ruine
was
likely
to
follow
)
neither
to
haue
good
beginning
,
nor
likely
to
haue
good
ending
;
but
to
beginne
in
ignorance
and
to
end
in
sinne
,
to
beginne
in
mistaking
the
Law
of
God
&
to
end
in
the
wicked
disobedience
of
seruams
to
their
Masters
,
&
in
the
rebellious
contempt
of
the
lawes
of
men
.
But
for
the
transgression
of
mens
lawes
by
this
doctrine
,
or
the
mischiefes
that
may
ensue
of
it
,
in
the
commonwealth
,
I
will
not
meddle
:
I
will
not
censure
the
one
,
nor
divine
of
the
other
,
you
are
a
teacher
of
Gods
word
,
within
the
compas
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
rocke
or
on
the
sand
,
on
the
firme
rocke
of
Gods
law
,
or
on
the
fickle
sand
of
your
owne
fantasie
misunderstanding
the
law
,
and
so
whether
it
tend
to
the
edification
or
ruine
of
the
Church
;
For
touching
the
commanding
of
the
Sabaoth
,
(
vpon
which
I
averre
this
doctrine
of
yours
cannot
be
grounded
)
lay
it
before
you
and
consider
it
well
.
And
tell
me
to
whom
is
the
charge
of
seruants
ceasing
from
worke
on
the
Saboath
Ammonites
and
Moabites
into
the
congregation
of
the
Lord
:
Let
me
aske
you
one
question
more
,
of
a
case
that
hath
fallen
in
my
remembrance
:
A
precept
comes
out
from
the
Prince
;
That
every
Cittizen
in
London
shall
on
such
a
day
keepe
his
seruants
within
doores
and
not
suffer
them
to
goe
a
broad
.
If
not
withstanding
that
precept
,
some
Master
sends
forth
his
seruant
about
his
businesse
,
doth
the
seruant
transgresse
the
Princes
commandement
by
obeying
his
masters
:
Or
ought
he
by
pretence
of
that
precept
to
disobey
his
Master
and
neglect
his
charge
?
It
is
plaine
he
doth
the
former
and
therefore
he
ought
not
to
doe
the
latter
.
For
the
commandement
was
giuen
to
his
master
not
to
him
,
and
the
purpose
of
it
was
to
restraine
his
Master
from
commanding
such
seruice
and
not
to
restraine
the
seruant
from
obeying
his
Master
if
it
were
commanded
:
there
it
is
apparent
that
the
obligations
of
commandements
pertaineth
to
them
to
whom
they
are
prescribed
as
rules
,
and
not
to
them
of
whom
only
(
as
being
the
matter
of
the
precept
)
they
are
prescribed
.
Now
that
that
clause
of
the
Commandement
touching
seruants
was
not
giuen
to
the
seruants
them selues
,
but
to
their
Masters
,
in
whose
power
and
disposition
they
are
,
the
text
and
tenour
of
the
commandement
doth
clearly
import
;
for
marke
it
well
and
answere
me
;
to
whom
is
this
speech
directed
?
Neither
thy
sonne
nor
thy
daughter
,
shall
doe
any
worke
on
the
Sabaoth
day
:
is
it
not
to
the
Parents
?
For
can
this
manner
of
speech
(
thy
sonne
thy
daughter
)
be
rightly
directed
to
any
other
then
the
parent
,
and
is
not
by
the
same
reason
the
clause
that
next
followeth
,
(
neither
shall
thy
man
seruant
nor
thy
maid-seruant
doe
any
worke
on
the
Sabaoth
day
)
directed
to
the
Masters
of
such
seruants
?
Seeing
that
phrase
of
speech
(
thy
man
seruant
thy
maidseruant
)
cannot
rightly
be
vsed
to
any
other
?
It
is
therefore
as
cleare
as
the
Sunne
,
euen
to
meane
vnderstandings
,
(
if
they
will
giue
but
meane
attendance
,
to
the
tenour
of
Gods
commandements
,
rather
then
the
fond
interpretations
and
deprauations
of
men
)
that
that
clause
of
the
commandement
touching
seruants
cessation
from
working
on
the
Sabaoth
,
is
not
giuen
to
seruants
themselues
but
to
their
Masters
concerning
them
.
Or
if
to
any
darke
vnderstanding
,
which
some
grosse
cloud
may
ouershadow
,
this
seeme
not
cleere
enough
,
the
declaration
yet
of
Moses
himselfe
touching
the
commandement
,
will
make
it
so
:
of
Moses
I
say
,
who
can
neither
be
suspected
of
ignorance
,
as
hauing
beene
with
the
Lord
40
daies
together
in
the
Mountaine
when
he
receiued
the
tables
of
the
commandements
:
That
thy
man
servant
and
thy
maidseruant
may
rest
as
well
as
thou
:
It
is
to
this
(
thou
)
therefore
to
whom
this
charge
is
directed
that
the
seruants
should
rest
vpon
the
Sabaoth
;
who
can
be
conceiued
to
be
no
other
then
the
master
of
those
seruants
,
which
yet
moreouer
the
reason
of
that
commandement
(
touching
seruants
rest
immediatly
added
)
will
better
cleare
from
all
exception
;
for
remember
(
saith
Moses
)
that
thy selfe
wast
a
seruant
in
the
land
of
Aegypt
,
and
the
Lord
thy
God
brought
thee
out
thence
with
a
mighty
hand
,
and
an
out
stretched
arme
:
Therefore
the
Lord
thy
God
hath
commanded
thee
to
make
a
day
of
rest
,
for
to
whom
was
that
spoken
,
remember
that
thy selfe
wast
a
seruant
in
the
land
of
Aegypt
,
but
to
them
that
had
beene
servants
,
and
now
were
not
seruants
?
Or
to
what
intent
and
purpose
is
that
(
remember
)
brought
in
?
remember
that
thy selfe
wast
a
seruant
,
but
to
moue
compassion
in
them
towards
their
owne
servants
,
and
allow
them
a
time
of
rest
,
hauing
themselues
felt
the
burthen
and
affliction
of
seruants
in
Aegypt
,
and
remembring
how
glad
they
would
haue
beene
of
some
remission
;
but
if
the
commandement
of
rest
had
beene
directly
and
immediatly
giuen
to
seruants
themselues
,
what
needed
any
perswasion
to
that
effect
?
Would
not
seruants
,
over
set
and
wearied
with
six
daies
toile
,
be
of
themselues
glad
to
rest
on
the
seauenth
?
Or
would
they
be
so
hot
set
on
worke
,
whereby
yet
they
gained
nothing
,
but
their
labour
for
their
paines
,
and
the
profit
being
another
mans
,
that
the
commandement
of
God
could
not
restraine
them
,
but
they
needed
also
to
be
perswaded
?
Or
if
perswasion
had
beene
needful
,
were
this
a
convenient
perswasion
to
vse
to
seruants
?
Remember
that
thou
wast
a
servant
in
the
land
of
Aegypt
:
which
euen
now
,
when
they
were
out
the
land
of
Aegypt
were
seruants
?
And
(
to
proceede
with
the
text
)
what
other
importance
hath
that
other
reason
,
which
immediatly
followeth
.
And
(
remember
that
the
Lord
thy
God
hath
brought
thee
thence
)
out
of
Aegypt
with
a
mighty
hand
and
out-stretched
arme
.
Therefore
the
Lord
thy
God
hath
commanded
thee
to
make
a
day
of
rest
.
Hath
it
any
other
but
to
declare
that
the
Lord
who
had
redeemed
them
from
their
continuall
slaueries
,
hath
iust
title
&
right
to
impose
on
them
the
commandement
of
the
Sabaoth
for
their
servants
rest
;
importing
as
much
,
as
if
he
had
said
,
although
of
thy selfe
thou
shouldest
haue
compassion
of
thy
seruant
and
allow
him
rest
.
Remembring
that
thy selfe
wast
a
seruant
in
the
land
of
Aegypt
,
yet
art
thou
more
effectually
obliged
to
doe
it
,
because
the
Lord
hath
commanded
thee
.
(
The
Lord
)
that
brought
thee
out
of
thraldome
and
vncessant
labours
in
Aegypt
,
and
therefore
hath
reason
to
command
one
daies
rest
,
in
a
weekes
revolution
(
Thee
)
that
by
his
redeeming
hand
art
set
at
liberty
from
that
labour
and
seruitude
.
Where
marke
againe
that
the
Lord
is
said
to
haue
commanded
them
,
who
a
little
before
were
said
to
be
seruants
in
Aegypt
and
by
his
goodnesse
were
freed
from
that
slauery
;
which
reason
could
not
be
intended
or
directed
to
them
,
which
still
remained
in
servitude
.
It
is
cleare
therefore
that
all
this
perswasion
of
Moses
for
servants
resting
on
the
Sabaoth
,
was
not
directed
to
the
seruants
themselues
,
who
to
take
their
ease
on
the
Sabaoth
needed
neither
to
be
commanded
nor
intreated
(
licence
would
serue
their
turne
)
but
to
the
Masters
whose
desire
of
gaine
,
by
the
seruants
labour
might
stand
betwixt
the
Sabaoth
and
the
seruants
rest
:
and
to
make
an
end
with
the
text
,
with
the
last
wordes
of
it
:
what
is
it
,
that
the
Lord
for
these
reasons
commanded
?
was
it
barely
to
keepe
&
obserue
the
Sabaoth
,
as
it
is
in
the
vulgar
English
,
Latine
and
Greeke
translations
?
No
they
are
all
short
,
it
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
that
is
to
make
a
day
of
rest
.
Now
to
make
it
to
be
so
,
importeth
not
only
to
obserue
it
himselfe
,
but
to
cause
others
also
to
obserue
it
,
which
is
euidently
the
property
of
Masters
and
gouernors
:
wherefore
seeing
both
the
commandement
touching
seruants
rest
from
labour
on
the
Sabaoth
day
and
reasons
added
,
by
Moses
to
perswade
that
point
,
(
and
draw
their
mindes
to
obsequiousnesse
)
are
evidently
directed
to
the
Masters
and
not
(
neither
of
both
)
to
the
seruants
themselues
,
I
take
it
out
of
all
question
as
cleare
as
the
Sunshine
at
midday
,
that
if
seruants
by
their
Masters
command
doe
any
worke
on
the
Sabaoth
the
sinne
is
not
theirs
,
who
as
touching
their
bodily
labour
are
meerely
subiect
to
their
Masters
power
,
but
it
is
their
Masters
sin
:
for
their
sin
it
is
that
transgres
the
law
.
They
transgresse
the
law
,
who
are
obliged
by
it
:
they
are
obliged
by
it
,
to
whom
it
was
giuen
and
imposed
,
and
giuen
it
was
as
I
haue
plentifully
proued
only
to
Masters
.
Or
if
notwithstanding
all
these
euidences
,
you
will
still
contend
that
the
prohibition
touching
bodily
labour
on
the
Sabaoth
is
directly
imposed
on
the
seruants
themselues
,
see
whether
you
bring
not
the
Oxe
and
the
Asse
and
other
cattle
also
vnder
the
obligation
of
this
commandement
,
whose
worke
is
immediatly
after
that
of
seruants
prohibited
,
and
precisely
vnder
the
same
forme
of
words
,
whose
labours
yet
on
the
Sabaoth
I
hope
you
will
not
say
to
be
in
them
sinnes
and
transgressions
of
Gods
law
?
But
as
the
labour
of
the
beast
is
the
sinne
and
transgression
of
the
Master
,
to
whom
the
commandement
of
the
beasts
resting
from
labour
wasgiuen
,
so
is
the
labour
of
the
seruant
also
,
which
by
the
Masters
commandment
he
executed
on
that
day
(
as
being
touching
bodily
seruice
incident
to
mankinde
in
like
degree
of
subiection
)
the
Masters
sinne
,
and
not
the
seruants
.
For
distinction
must
be
made
betweene
the
matter
and
the
forme
(
if
to
speake
in
schoolemens
stile
offend
you
not
)
that
is
betweene
the
act
and
the
guilt
of
sinne
,
of
which
in
this
case
the
act
indeede
,
wherewith
the
commandement
of
the
Sabaoth
is
violated
is
the
servants
,
but
the
crime
and
guiltinesse
is
the
Masters
that
sets
him
on
worke
,
for
seeing
sin
formally
taken
is
nothing
else
but
the
transgression
of
the
law
or
vnlawfulnesse
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
the
Apostle
tearmeth
it
most
Thou
shalt
doe
no
worke
,
but
also
that
none
of
his
should
doe
any
as
he
is
the
Father
or
Master
of
a
family
,
in
those
clauses
that
follow
.
Neither
shall
thy
sonne
nor
thy
daughter
,
nor
manseruant
nor
maid-servant
,
&c.
which
latter
point
touching
his
keeping
of
the
Sabaoth
viz.
as
the
gouernour
of
his
house
,
had
not
beene
so
well
provided
for
,
and
regulated
by
the
law
of
God
,
if
these
clauses
of
children
and
seruants
abstinence
from
labour
on
the
Sabaoth
,
had
beene
giuen
directly
to
themselues
,
and
not
to
their
governours
.
But
you
will
reply
perhaps
that
the
commandement
touching
seruants
rest
on
the
Sabaoth
,
is
giuen
to
their
Masters
indeede
,
but
not
only
to
them
,
but
to
their
seruants
also
.
No
such
matter
;
for
if
it
be
;
let
that
appeare
and
set
downe
the
clause
wherein
it
is
manifestly
expressed
or
necessarily
implied
,
that
seruants
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
workes
which
seruants
doe
on
the
Sabaoth
day
of
themselues
and
not
as
proceeding
from
their
Masters
iniunction
,
but
from
their
owne
election
it
is
no
question
but
they
transgresse
the
commandement
:
but
those
workes
they
doe
not
as
seruants
,
that
is
at
anothers
command
;
but
as
in
the
condition
of
their
seruice
,
or
favour
of
their
Masters
they
retaine
some
degree
of
liberty
,
and
haue
some
disposition
of
themselues
permitted
vnto
them
,
so
in
that
respect
fall
into
the
clause
of
free
men
viz.
the
first
clause
of
the
commandement
:
Thou
shalt
doe
no
worke
;
but
to
seruants
as
seruants
(
in
case
they
be
commanded
to
worke
)
which
is
our
question
,
there
is
no
clause
of
the
commandement
imposed
.
Whereby
may
easily
and
clearly
be
discerned
the
difference
betwixt
the
equity
&
wisdome
of
Almighty
God
in
the
constitution
of
the
law
of
the
Sabaoth
,
obliging
Parents
,
and
Masters
and
owners
,
for
the
children
,
&
seruants
and
cattle
that
are
meerely
vnder
their
powers
;
and
the
rashnesse
and
iniquity
of
wretched
men
interpreting
the
law
as
immediatly
&
directly
obliging
the
children
&
seruants
themselues
:
for
(
good
Sir
)
consider
it
well
,
and
tell
me
whether
it
be
more
equall
to
impose
the
law
of
ceasing
from
worke
to
the
servants
themselues
,
or
to
their
Masters
in
whose
power
they
are
?
Servants
are
not
homines
turis
sui
nor
operum
suorum
domini
as
Lawyers
speake
;
they
are
but
their
Masters
liuing
instruments
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
Aristotle
tearmeth
them
,
they
haue
noe
right
or
power
to
dispose
of
themselues
,
they
cannot
play
and
worke
at
their
owne
pleasure
(
for
this
is
the
condition
of
freemen
,
not
of
servants
)
but
are
meerely
and
intirely
for
bodily
labour
and
seruice
vnder
the
power
&
commandement
of
their
Masters
and
vnder
their
power
for
service
only
:
in
such
sort
as
they
can
neither
iustly
performe
any
labour
,
which
their
Masters
forbid
,
nor
omit
any
which
their
Masters
command
,
but
are
vnder
their
inforcement
,
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
ouer
their
children
)
not
only
a
directiue
,
but
a
correctiue
and
coactiue
power
:
So
then
I
pray
you
(
tell
me
)
whether
the
commandement
touching
the
Sabaoth
was
not
of
common
reason
,
rather
to
be
imposed
on
them
which
were
at
liberty
,
and
had
power
to
obey
it
,
then
on
them
which
were
vtterly
void
and
destitute
of
that
power
,
and
liberty
?
Whether
in
such
a
case
it
were
not
more
reasonable
to
inioyne
the
Masters
that
they
should
not
command
,
then
inioyne
the
seruants
not
to
obey
,
for
the
poore
seruants
if
their
Masters
command
them
could
not
chuse
but
worke
,
the
law
of
nations
bound
them
vnto
it
,
which
had
put
them
vnder
their
Masters
power
,
and
inforcement
:
but
the
masters
might
forbeare
to
command
,
there
was
no
law
,
that
bound
them
to
that
,
or
inioyned
them
to
exact
ought
of
their
seruants
.
It
was
therefore
much
more
agreeable
both
to
the
wisdome
and
iustice
of
Almighty
God
to
impose
the
commandement
rather
on
the
Masters
then
on
the
seruants
,
for
thereby
was
preuented
the
disobedience
of
servants
to
their
Masters
,
&
the
punishment
that
might
attend
on
that
,
and
the
breach
of
the
law
of
nations
,
(
all
which
the
other
had
occasioned
)
and
yet
the
Masters
were
in
noe
sort
wronged
:
for
their
seruants
remained
in
their
power
,
no
lesse
on
the
Sabaoth
,
then
the
other
sixe
common
daies
,
only
the
Lord
did
qualify
,
and
determine
the
act
,
or
execution
of
that
power
,
on
the
Sabaoth
day
namely
to
command
their
servants
cessation
from
bodily
labour
&
instead
of
that
to
exercise
themselues
in
spirituall
workes
of
holinesse
;
it
was
I
say
(
to
establish
the
commandement
in
such
forme
)
more
agreeable
to
the
wisdome
,
and
justice
of
God
;
and
was
it
not
also
to
his
goodnesse
,
and
compassion
?
For
say
that
the
commandement
touching
servants
vacation
was
giuen
to
themselues
,
not
to
their
Masters
,
should
not
thereby
poore
servants
(
to
whom
every
where
else
the
law
of
God
appeareth
milde
and
pittifull
)
be
intangled
with
inextricable
perplexity
?
For
suppose
his
Master
inioyne
him
some
worke
on
the
Sabaoth
day
(
couetous
Masters
may
soone
doe
it
)
especially
if
they
thinke
that
precept
touching
their
seruants
cessation
,
not
to
touch
them
)
or
else
they
may
be
ignorant
of
the
law
of
God
,
(
as
Christians
and
Iewes
,
may
happily
serue
Pagans
)
Admit
I
say
some
Master
commands
his
servant
to
worke
on
the
Sabaoth
,
what
should
the
servant
doe
,
should
he
worke
?
God
hath
forbidden
him
;
should
he
not
worke
?
His
Master
hath
commanded
him
:
for
the
law
of
God
is
set
at
strife
with
the
law
of
nations
,
and
that
poore
servant
like
the
Sailor
betweene
Sylla
and
Charybdis
,
standeth
perplexed
&
afflicted
in
the
midst
betweene
stripes
and
sinne
:
for
he
must
of
necessity
either
disobey
Gods
commandement
,
which
is
sinne
;
or
his
Masters
,
which
is
attended
with
stripes
.
Besides
it
is
absurd
that
the
law
of
God
,
should
restraine
the
seruant
from
obeying
his
Master
,
and
yet
not
restraine
the
Master
from
commanding
his
servant
vnlawful
things
:
As
it
is
also
another
absurdity
that
that
day
which
by
the
law
giuen
was
manifestly
intended
to
bring
seruants
release
,
and
remission
of
their
weekely
toile
;
should
by
the
decree
of
the
law
it selfe
aboue
all
other
daies
breede
their
greatest
perplexities
:
forasmuch
as
aboue
all
other
daies
(
if
their
Masters
be
not
men
that
feare
God
)
enforced
they
are
(
there
is
no
avoidance
)
to
venter
either
on
sinne
or
stripes
,
for
either
God
must
be
disobeyed
,
and
sinne
cleaueth
to
their
soules
,
or
their
Masters
;
and
stripes
light
vpon
their
bodies
,
either
they
must
obey
God
,
and
be
plagued
by
men
;
or
obey
men
,
and
be
condemned
by
God
:
you
will
say
it
is
better
to
obey
God
then
men
;
and
worse
to
diobey
him
that
can
cast
both
body
and
soule
into
hell
,
then
him
that
can
only
for
a
time
afflict
the
body
:
true
,
who
doubts
it
?
But
that
is
not
the
point
I
stand
vpon
;
the
point
is
how
it
agreeth
with
the
tender
goodnesse
,
and
compassion
of
Almighty
God
towards
poore
servants
(
whose
condition
is
yet
honest
and
lawfull
)
to
plunge
them
into
such
perplexities
,
as
namely
to
impose
on
them
a
commandement
,
which
they
can
neither
keepe
nor
breake
without
a
mischiefe
and
inconvenience
;
neither
keepe
as
the
seruants
of
men
nor
breake
as
they
are
the
servants
of
God
:
neither
keepe
without
sharpe
punishment
;
nor
breake
without
heavy
sinne
:
all
which
intanglement
of
seruants
,
and
calumniation
against
both
the
iustice
and
mercy
of
God
,
is
clearly
avoided
,
if
the
commandement
be
giuen
(
as
the
tenour
of
it
doth
simply
import
)
to
the
Masters
,
and
not
to
the
servants
;
which
I
haue
sufficiently
proued
,
both
by
the
evidence
of
holy
scripture
,
soe
to
haue
beene
,
and
by
the
evidence
and
inforcement
of
reason
,
that
it
should
be
so
.
And
doth
not
the
practise
of
holy
gouernours
registred
in
the
Scriptures
,
declare
,
that
they
had
the
same
vnderstanding
of
the
commandement
?
Nehemiah
,
when
he
saw
among
the
Iewes
at
Ierusalem
the
Sabaoth
prophaned
with
treading
of
wine
presses
,
carrying
of
burthens
,
buying
and
selling
,
whom
reproueth
he
for
it
?
The
seruants
by
whose
imployment
and
labour
these
things
were
done
,
and
the
Sabaoth
defiled
?
No
but
them
vnder
whose
power
the
servants
were
,
the
rulers
of
Iudah
;
and
what
rulers
?
the
Magistrats
only
?
Noe
such
matter
;
but
the
freemen
of
Iudah
,
that
is
to
say
the
Masters
of
those
Servants
:
for
such
(
namely
freemen
)
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
there
vsed
doth
properly
import
,
not
only
the
Magistrats
or
rulers
of
the
commonwealth
,
for
the
septuagint
which
(
being
them selues
Iewes
)
I
hold
,
best
knew
the
property
of
their
owne
language
;
translate
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
by
the
greeke
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
which
word
is
properly
and
directly
opposed
to
seruants
:
&
euery
where
almost
in
the
old
Testament
where
the
hebrew
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
found
(
which
is
knowne
,
to
signify
a
freeman
)
and
is
translated
in
the
greeke
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
it
is
in
the
chalde
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
is
manifestly
knowen
to
be
the
same
with
the
hebrew
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
but
farre
more
vsuall
in
the
Chaldie
tongue
.
They
were
the
freemen
of
Iudah
then
that
by
Nehemiah
were
called
to
account
,
and
reprooued
,
for
the
prophanation
of
the
Sabaoth
by
those
seruile
labours
which
(
no
question
)
had
beene
executed
by
their
seruants
;
but
if
the
seruants
by
those
labours
,
had
themselues
transgressed
the
commandement
:
had
he
not
done
both
iustly
,
to
haue
made
them
partakers
of
the
reproofe
,
who
had
beene
partakers
of
the
sinne
?
(
seeing
the
commandement
of
God
lay
equall
on
both
)
and
wisely
to
;
that
if
he
could
not
restraine
the
masters
from
commanding
,
yet
hee
might
restraine
the
seruants
from
obeying
,
and
so
haue
two
strings
to
his
bow
?
This
Nehemiah
did
not
(
who
vnderstood
well
the
commandement
)
but
rebuked
the
freemen
,
or
Masters
only
,
and
omitted
the
servants
;
and
yet
,
dealt
(
you
will
not
deny
I
am
sure
)
both
iustly
and
〈◊〉
for
had
he
done
more
wisely
thinke
you
to
rebuke
seruants
for
not
resting
on
the
Sabaoth
,
that
would
haue
rested
with
all
their
hearts
,
if
they
had
not
beene
constrained
to
worke
?
Or
had
hee
done
more
iustly
to
exact
that
of
the
seruants
which
,
(
for
ought
that
appeareth
)
the
commandement
of
God
exacted
not
from
them
?
For
what
worke
is
it
that
men
are
forbidden
of
the
Sabaoth
?
Is
it
not
the
same
that
is
permitted
on
the
sixe
daies
,
their
owne
worke
.
Thou
shalt
doe
all
thy
worke
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
&
is
it
the
servants
worke
where
about
as
a
servant
he
is
imployed
,
that
neither
is
vndertaken
of
himselfe
,
nor
for
himselfe
?
that
neither
beginneth
nor
endeth
in
himselfe
,
but
beginneth
in
his
Masters
command
,
and
endeth
meerely
in
his
Masters
profit
;
and
from
beginning
to
end
is
performed
in
his
Masters
feare
?
It
is
manifest
that
in
the
accompt
of
God
,
it
is
not
;
for
God
beholdeth
the
heart
,
and
that
is
a
mans
owne
worke
with
him
,
that
proceedeth
from
his
owne
will
.
And
therefore
in
Isaiah
:
it
is
the
will
that
is
forbidden
,
about
the
prophaning
of
the
Sabaoth
,
that
which
in
the
law
was
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
thy
worke
is
there
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
thy
(
labour
)
wholly
subiect
to
another
mans
command
:
secondly
because
the
commandement
forbiddeth
not
the
servant
to
worke
but
onely
forbiddeth
the
Master
his
servants
worke
;
thirdly
because
the
thing
it selfe
namely
servants
labour
,
is
not
evill
materially
and
ex
suo
genere
,
as
the
matters
of
the
other
negatiue
commandements
are
:
but
only
circumstantially
,
because
it
s
done
vpon
such
a
day
:
for
idolatry
,
blasphemy
,
dishonouring
of
Parents
,
murther
,
adultery
,
theft
,
false
testimony
,
coueting
of
that
is
other
mens
;
which
are
the
matter
of
other
commandements
are
euill
in
their
owne
nature
;
and
therefore
forbidden
,
because
they
are
euill
in
their
owne
nature
:
But
to
labour
on
the
Sabaoth
is
not
by
nature
evill
,
but
therefore
evill
because
it
is
forbidden
.
So
that
the
natiue
ilnesse
in
the
other
,
causeth
the
prohibition
,
but
the
prohibition
in
this
causeth
the
evill
,
for
labouring
on
the
seaventh
day
;
if
God
had
not
forbidden
it
had
not
beene
evill
at
all
(
no
more
then
to
labour
on
the
sixt
,
)
as
not
being
interdicted
by
any
law
of
nature
,
as
the
matters
of
all
the
other
commandements
are
for
although
the
secret
instinct
of
nature
teacheth
all
men
,
that
sometime
is
to
be
withdrawen
from
their
bodily
labours
,
and
to
be
dedicated
to
the
honour
of
God
(
which
euen
the
prophanest
Gentiles
,
amidst
all
the
blind
superstition
,
and
darkenesse
,
wherewith
they
were
couered
,
in
some
sort
did
)
appointing
set
times
to
be
spent
in
sacrifice
and
devotion
to
their
Idols
,
which
they
tooke
for
their
Gods
)
yet
to
obserue
one
day
in
the
number
of
seauen
,
as
a
certaine
day
of
that
number
,
and
namely
the
seauenth
in
the
ranke
,
or
a
whole
day
by
the
revolution
of
the
Sunne
,
and
with
that
seuere
exactnesse
of
restraining
all
worke
(
as
was
enioyned
to
the
Iewes
)
is
but
meerely
ceremoniall
,
brought
in
by
positiue
law
;
and
is
not
of
the
law
of
nature
;
For
had
that
forme
of
keeping
Sabaoth
,
beene
a
law
of
nature
,
then
had
it
obliged
the
Gentiles
as
well
as
the
Iewes
,
seeing
they
participate
both
equall
in
the
same
nature
:
yet
it
did
not
so
,
but
was
giuen
to
the
Israelites
,
to
be
a
speciall
marke
of
their
separation
To
turne
to
the
point
and
clearly
to
determine
it
;
the
Master
only
is
accountable
vnto
God
,
for
the
servants
worke
done
on
the
Sabaoth
:
but
for
what
worke
?
Namely
for
all
the
workes
of
labour
,
but
not
for
the
workes
of
sinne
:
and
how
for
the
workes
of
labour
?
Namely
,
if
he
doe
them
not
absolutely
,
of
his
owne
election
,
but
respectiuely
,
as
of
obedience
to
his
Masters
command
;
for
touching
labours
,
servants
are
directly
obliged
to
their
Masters
.
But
touching
sinnes
,
themselues
are
obliged
immediatly
to
God
.
Therefore
those
they
may
doe
because
their
master
commands
them
:
these
they
may
not
doe
(
although
commanded
)
because
God
forbids
them
.
The
servants
then
may
not
in
any
case
,
sinne
at
the
commandement
of
any
Master
on
earth
:
because
hee
hath
receiued
immediatly
a
direct
commandement
to
the
contrary
,
from
his
Master
in
heauen
.
For
it
is
better
to
obey
God
then
man
.
And
there
is
no
proportion
betwixt
the
duties
which
they
owe
as
servants
to
their
Masters
according
to
the
flesh
.
And
which
they
owe
as
Children
to
the
father
of
spirits
:
or
betwixt
the
obligation
wherein
they
stand
to
men
,
who
haue
power
but
ouer
their
bodies
in
limited
cases
,
and
that
for
a
season
.
And
that
infinite
obligation
wherein
they
stand
to
him
that
is
both
creator
&
preserver
,
and
redeemer
,
&
Iudge
of
body
and
soule
;
sinne
therefore
they
may
not
,
if
their
Masters
command
them
,
because
God
hath
forbidden
them
(
not
only
forbidden
I
say
but
forbidden
it
them
)
But
labour
they
may
if
their
Masters
command
them
,
because
God
hath
no
way
forbidden
them
that
;
God
hath
indeede
forbidden
the
Masters
exacting
that
worke
on
the
Sabaoth
;
but
he
hath
not
forbidden
the
Servants
execution
of
that
worke
if
it
demanded
or
exacted
:
he
hath
restrained
the
Master
from
commanding
it
,
but
he
hath
not
restrained
the
seruants
from
obeying
if
it
be
commanded
,
for
although
I
acknowledge
the
servants
worke
on
the
Sabaoth
to
imply
sinne
:
yet
I
say
it
is
not
the
servants
fault
.
And
albeit
I
confesse
the
commandement
of
God
be
transgressed
and
God
disobeyed
by
such
workes
on
the
Sabaoth
,
yet
it
is
not
the
seruant
that
transgresseth
the
commandement
,
it
is
not
he
that
disobeyeth
God
.
For
the
question
is
not
the
passine
sense
,
whether
God
be
displeased
with
these
workes
,
but
of
the
actiue
who
displeaseth
him
.
The
thing
is
confessed
but
the
person
is
questioned
.
Confessed
,
that
is
,
that
there
is
sinne
committed
in
that
worke
,
but
questioned
whose
sinne
it
is
.
For
worke
hauing
relation
both
to
the
Master
and
to
the
seruant
:
to
the
Masters
commanding
and
to
the
servants
executing
;
I
affirme
that
the
worke
is
sinfull
only
on
the
Masters
part
,
not
on
the
seruants
,
namely
as
it
is
an
effect
of
the
Masters
command
not
as
an
effect
of
the
seruants
obedience
.
And
the
case
seemes
cleare
.
The
matter
whereabout
the
seruants
labour
is
,
is
the
Masters
.
So
is
the
command
that
sets
him
to
it
.
So
is
the
awe
and
feare
that
keepes
him
to
it
.
So
is
the
profit
that
redoundeth
of
it
.
And
aboue
all
the
commandements
of
God
whereby
that
worke
of
the
seruant
is
forbidden
is
giuen
directly
to
the
Master
.
And
in
the
seruant
all
is
contrary
.
It
is
not
his
owne
worke
.
It
proceedeth
not
from
his
owne
will
.
His
condition
exacteth
his
obedience
about
labour
,
and
aboue
all
God
commands
of
ceasing
from
labour
belongeth
not
to
him
,
I
meane
not
to
him
directly
,
as
the
person
to
whom
it
is
giuen
,
but
only
as
the
subiect
or
matter
whereof
it
is
giuen
;
for
he
is
one
of
them
indeede
,
whose
workes
are
forbidden
,
but
not
of
them
to
whom
it
is
forbidden
,
one
of
whom
but
not
to
whom
the
commandement
was
imposed
.
But
where
the
law
was
not
imposed
,
sinne
cannot
be
imputed
seeing
sinne
is
nothing
but
the
transgression
of
the
law
;
it
is
not
therefore
the
servants
but
the
Masters
sinne
.
But
there
is
another
obiection
,
for
admit
the
servants
for
malice
consist
)
he
concurreth
not
.
But
it
wholly
proceedeth
from
the
infection
of
the
concupiscence
,
wherewith
the
faculties
of
the
soule
are
originally
defiled
,
the
actions
themselues
issuing
from
the
powers
,
and
the
sinfulnesse
of
the
actions
from
the
sinfulnesse
of
the
powers
,
like
corrupt
streames
flowing
from
filthier
springs
.
It
is
not
therefore
euery
concurrence
of
the
servants
with
the
Master
to
a
sinfull
action
which
causeth
the
staine
,
and
imputation
of
sinne
vpon
the
servant
:
as
when
he
consenteth
and
concurreth
only
to
the
action
not
to
the
sinne
:
namely
likes
and
approues
it
,
as
his
masters
worke
,
yet
vtterly
dislikes
it
,
as
it
is
his
masters
transgression
,
likes
of
the
worke
for
the
obligation
of
obedience
,
wherein
(
touching
worke
)
he
standeth
to
serue
his
Master
,
and
yet
dislikes
of
the
sinne
,
for
the
great
obligation
wherein
euery
one
standeth
toward
the
honour
of
God
.
But
yet
(
to
answere
secondly
to
the
point
of
resisting
)
the
seruant
ought
not
for
any
dislike
or
detestation
cut
off
from
his
people
,
and
to
dye
the
death
,
every
person
therefore
,
the
servant
as
well
as
the
master
.
I
answere
Sixe
daies
thou
shalt
doe
thy
worke
,
and
the
seaventh
day
thou
shalt
rest
that
thine
Oxe
and
thine
Asse
,
and
thy
Sonne
,
and
thy
Maide
,
&c.
may
be
refreshed
,
for
is
it
not
manifest
that
the
servants
worke
is
accounted
the
Masters
,
seeing
the
rest
from
the
Masters
worke
is
the
refreshing
of
the
servants
,
the
Master
therefore
who
by
the
morall
law
was
commanded
that
his
servants
should
not
worke
on
the
Sabaoth
was
by
the
Iudiciall
to
bee
punished
with
death
,
if
the
servant
did
worke
that
day
by
his
commandement
.
And
thus
haue
I
proued
my
assertion
,
namely
that
the
commandement
of
the
Sabaoth
was
not
giuen
,
nor
fit
to
be
giuen
to
the
servants
themselues
but
to
their
gouernours
,
both
by
arguments
of
reason
which
is
the
rule
of
men
,
and
authority
of
Scriptures
,
which
is
the
rule
of
Christians
,
and
cannot
finde
any
thing
materiall
in
either
of
both
that
may
reproue
it
:
but
yet
if
I
should
admit
(
which
I
doubt
you
will
neuer
proue
)
that
the
commandement
was
directly
giuen
to
servants
themselues
,
as
servants
,
and
that
they
might
lawfully
disobey
their
Masters
touching
those
workes
where
by
the
precept
of
the
Sabaoth
might
be
transgressed
:
yet
haue
I
another
exception
against
your
doctrine
;
namely
for
condemning
every
light
worke
(
such
as
inviting
of
guests
,
or
fetching
of
wine
from
a
neighbours
house
,
or
giuing
a
horse
provender
)
(
for
these
are
the
very
instances
which
bred
the
question
)
for
transgression
of
Gods
commandements
,
forbidden
on
the
Sabaoth
:
no
;
it
is
not
;
the
commandement
importeth
no
such
thing
for
it
is
not
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
that
is
every
worke
,
but
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
that
is
there
forbidden
,
that
is
every
servile
worke
,
for
such
the
word
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
properly
doth
import
,
and
servile
worke
,
by
the
interpretation
of
the
best
diuines
is
accounted
,
either
that
which
is
attended
with
the
toile
of
the
body
,
or
at
least
intended
and
directed
to
lucre
and
gaine
of
riches
,
with
some
care
of
the
minde
,
such
as
mens
ordinary
worke
is
wont
to
bee
on
common
daies
.
And
that
the
worke
there
forbidden
hath
a
speciall
relation
to
the
gaine
of
riches
is
the
better
apparent
because
the
same
word
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
signifieth
(
opes
)
as
well
as
(
opus
)
riches
as
well
as
worke
,
and
not
only
where
the
commandement
was
pronounced
(
in
the
20
of
Exodus
)
but
wheresoeuer
it
is
repeated
in
the
bookes
of
the
law●
,
which
is
oftentimes
(
and
differently
for
other
circumstances
)
the
same
word
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
is
euer
retained
and
never
changed
,
not
every
worke
therefore
absolutely
,
but
every
worke
of
such
a
kinde
,
namely
consisting
in
toile
and
tending
to
gaine
is
restrained
by
the
commandement
,
and
is
there
not
evident
reason
to
vnderstand
it
so
?
For
seeing
the
intendment
of
the
precept
is
clearly
(
in
the
point
of
that
daies
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
spirituall
exercise
:
it
followeth
manifestly
that
if
there
be
any
workes
that
resolue
not
the
body
and
so
hinder
not
the
refreshing
of
it
,
nor
dissolue
and
alienate
the
minde
from
the
service
of
God
,
and
meditation
of
Godlinesse
,
that
these
workes
are
not
forbidden
because
neither
the
vacation
which
the
commandement
importeth
,
nor
that
sanctification
which
it
intendeth
is
impeached
by
them
.
And
if
you
will
obiect
that
euen
very
light
workes
are
expressely
forbidden
in
the
law
,
so
that
to
kindle
fire
on
the
sabaoth
day
was
vnlawfull
,
I
must
answere
[
a
](A16722-e2550-b)
a
Luke
.
13.
15.
for
loosing
their
beasts
from
the
staules
,
and
leading
them
to
water
on
the
Sabaoth
day
?
Yet
hee
mentioneth
,
and
reproues
it
not
(
and
thinke
Sr
by
the
way
,
he
that
condemned
not
bringing
of
beasts
to
drinke
,
would
not
condemne
bringing
meat
to
beasts
)
or
would
he
haue
(
not
suffered
only
)
but
excused
the
[
b
](A16722-e2570-b)
b
Luke
.
6.
plucking
of
eares
of
corne
,
and
rubbing
out
the
graines
on
the
Sabaoth
day
as
he
did
in
his
disciples
?
or
would
he
himselfe
[
c
](A16722-e2580-b)
c
Ioh.
9.
6.
on
the
Sabaoth
day
haue
made
clay
,
and
anointed
with
it
the
eyes
of
the
blinde
?
or
would
he
haue
commanded
others
to
doe
such
workes
on
the
Sabaoth
,
as
he
did
the
impotent
man
,
whom
he
had
healed
,
namely
to
[
d
](A16722-e2590-b)
d
Ioh.
5.
8.
9.
take
vp
his
bed
that
day
and
depart
?
See
then
how
this
seuere
precisenesse
of
yours
agreeth
with
the
practise
and
doctrine
of
our
Saviour
:
who
not
only
suffered
these
light
workes
to
be
done
without
reprehension
,
but
excused
them
,
but
did
them
himselfe
;
but
commanded
others
to
doe
them
:
therefore
in
his
iudgement
,
who
was
the
law
giuer
,
and
must
be
the
Iudge
of
all
the
sinnes
of
men
;
they
were
no
transgression
of
the
commandement
of
the
Sabaoth
.
For
vaine
it
were
to
reply
that
Christ
was
Lord
of
the
Sabaoth
,
and
therefore
might
dispence
with
the
commandement
at
his
owne
pleasure
:
vaine
it
were
I
say
,
for
although
he
were
Lord
of
the
Sabaoth
as
God
,
being
so
the
law
giuer
,
yet
was
he
subiect
to
the
commandement
,
as
man
,
being
as
the
Apostle
saith
[
*
](A16722-e2610-b)
*
Galat.
4.
4.
made
vnder
the
law
;
for
what
else
importeth
that
kinde
of
speech
(
made
vnder
the
law
)
but
that
he
which
by
nature
was
not
vnder
the
law
,
as
being
God
,
was
yet
made
vnder
the
law
as
becomming
man
:
which
law
first
himselfe
pronounced
:
he
came
●o
fulfill
,
and
secondly
his
Apostles
that
hee
had
fulfilled
it
in
that
he
had
no
sinne
:
but
every
transgression
of
the
law
was
sinne
,
therefore
in
no
sort
he
transgreffed
the
law
,
and
it
not
only
were
(
not
)
vaine
in
this
manner
to
excuse
our
Saviours
actions
,
but
a
very
hard
&
dangerous
point
,
when
question
is
made
of
our
Saviours
fulfilling
of
the
law
,
to
fly
in
this
case
to
the
refuge
of
dispensations
:
as
if
our
Sauiour
that
came
to
satisfy
for
all
our
transgressions
of
the
law
,
performed
not
the
law
himfelfe
,
with
such
perfect
&
exact
obedience
as
might
answere
the
justice
of
God
,
and
the
strictresse
of
his
commandements
,
but
that
something
must
be
helped
or
supplied
by
dispensation
.
The
truth
is
therefore
that
our
Sauiours
obedience
,
answered
exactly
,
and
perfectly
satisfied
the
exigence
of
that
,
and
all
other
commandements
of
Almighty
God
,
performing
all
to
the
vtmost
that
they
required
,
and
therefore
those
easie
and
slender
workes
,
were
no
breaches
of
the
commandement
touching
the
Saboth
.
But
let
that
be
admitted
also
;
first
that
the
commandement
was
immediatly
giuen
to
seruants
,
Secondly
that
it
was
giuen
touching
the
lightest
degree
of
workes
.
Let
servants
bee
the
persons
,
and
those
workes
the
matter
to
whom
,
and
of
which
the
commandement
was
giuen
,
is
your
doctrine
yet
iustified
hereby
,
and
subiect
to
no
other
reproofe
?
The
persons
haue
afforded
me
exceptions
against
it
because
the
commandement
was
not
giuen
to
seruants
.
And
the
matter
because
it
was
not
imposed
touching
that
light
sort
of
workes
;
the
time
also
will
,
because
it
cannot
be
vnderstood
of
the
Lords
day
;
for
what
day
was
it
,
of
which
the
charge
of
vacation
was
so
strictly
giuen
?
Was
it
not
the
seauenth
day
of
the
weeke
?
The
seauenth
(
saith
the
precept
)
is
the
Sabaoth
of
the
Lord
thy
God
;
In
it
thou
shalt
doe
no
worke
.
And
why
the
seauenth
?
Because
in
sixe
daies
the
Lord
finished
all
the
workes
of
creation
,
and
rested
the
seauenth
day
;
therefore
he
sanctified
the
seauenth
day
,
&
what
day
is
it
whereof
we
question
?
The
Lords
day
?
That
's
the
first
day
of
the
weeke
It
is
therefore
the
seauenth
day
of
the
weeke
(
the
Sabaoth
of
the
Iewes
)
not
the
first
day
of
the
weeke
(
the
Sabaoth
of
Christians
)
that
was
so
strictly
by
Gods
commandement
destined
to
rest
.
Therefore
the
workes
done
on
the
Sabaoth
day
are
no
transgressions
of
Gods
commandements
.
But
Ius
humanum
it
is
but
the
decree
of
men
,
which
must
not
equall
it selfe
with
Gods
commandement
,
and
must
be
content
with
a
lesse
degree
of
authority
and
obligation
then
the
commandement
touching
the
Sabaoth
,
might
challenge
that
was
pronounced
in
the
eares
of
men
with
the
voice
of
God
,
and
written
in
tables
with
the
finger
of
God
.
What
then
doe
I
doubt
of
the
iust
abolishment
of
the
Iewes
Sabaoth
;
no
in
no
sort
;
it
is
abolished
and
that
iustly
I
confesse
;
yet
not
by
any
repeale
of
any
contrary
decree
;
but
only
by
expiration
,
because
it
is
growen
out
of
date
;
It
was
established
for
a
signe
*
partition
wall
is
broken
downe
,
Iewes
and
Gentiles
in
Christ
are
made
all
one
:
all
are
become
the
people
of
God
,
the
Sabaoth
was
(
saith
the
Apostle
)
a
shadow
*
That
is
past
;
or
was
it
a
shadow
of
rest
and
liberty
from
the
slauery
of
sinne
in
the
kingdome
of
grace
,
that
is
obtained
;
or
is
it
a
shadow
of
the
eternall
rest
of
the
blessed
in
the
kingdome
of
Glory
?
That
is
sure
to
be
obtained
(
Christ
hath
giuen
his
word
,
and
wee
haue
receiued
the
pledge
of
his
holy
spirit
)
These
things
are
shadowed
in
Sabaoth
.
And
these
things
are
already
performed
in
Christ
.
The
first
is
past
,
the
second
is
present
,
the
third
is
assured
.
The
Sabaoth
therefore
that
was
the
shadow
of
these
things
,
when
the
things
themselues
were
come
,
vanished
of
it selfe
.
But
might
not
the
celebration
of
the
Sabaoth
,
which
thus
ceased
,
bee
justly
translated
by
the
Church
to
the
first
day
of
the
weeke
?
Yes
certainly
both
might
and
was
iustly
.
For
I
consider
that
the
generality
,
was
of
the
morall
law
,
of
the
law
of
nature
,
namely
that
men
should
sequester
sometime
from
worldly
affaires
,
which
they
might
dedicate
to
the
honour
of
God
,
only
the
speciality
,
that
is
the
limitation
and
designement
of
that
time
,
was
the
churches
ordinance
appointing
first
one
certaine
day
,
&
that
in
relation
of
Christian
assemblies
,
namely
that
they
might
meete
and
pray
,
and
praise
God
together
with
one
voice
in
the
congregation
.
And
secondly
defigning
that
one
day
to
the
first
day
of
the
weeke
,
for
some
speciall
reasons
and
remembrances
.
For
first
it
was
the
day
of
Christs
resurrection
from
the
dead
.
Secondly
it
was
the
day
of
the
holy
Ghosts
descention
from
Heauen
to
powre
infinite
graces
vpon
Christians
.
The
first
of
them
for
our
iustification
as
the
Apostle
speaketh
.
The
second
for
the
sanctification
,
and
edification
of
the
whole
Church
(
to
omit
some
other
reasons
of
lesse
importance
)
iustly
therefore
was
the
consecration
of
the
Sabaoth
translated
to
that
day
.
But
what
of
that
?
What
if
the
consecration
of
the
Sabaoth
was
by
the
Church
translated
to
the
first
day
of
the
weeke
?
Was
therefore
the
commandement
of
God
translated
also
?
That
that
day
ought
to
be
obserued
vnder
the
same
obligation
with
the
Sabaoth
?
For
if
the
commandement
of
God
were
not
translated
by
the
Church
,
together
with
the
celebration
from
the
seauenth
day
to
the
first
day
,
then
is
working
on
the
first
day
no
violation
of
Gods
commandement
;
was
the
commandement
of
God
then
translated
from
the
Sabaoth
to
the
Lords
day
by
the
decree
of
the
Church
?
No
:
the
Church
did
it
not
,
let
mee
see
the
act
.
The
Church
could
not
doe
it
,
let
me
see
the
authority
:
the
Church
could
not
translate
the
commandement
to
the
first
day
,
which
God
himselfe
had
namely
limited
to
the
seaventh
.
For
could
the
Church
make
that
Gods
commandement
which
was
not
his
commandement
?
Gods
commandement
was
to
rest
on
the
seauenth
day
and
worke
on
the
first
;
therefore
to
rest
on
the
first
and
worke
on
the
seauenth
was
not
his
commandement
:
For
doth
the
same
commandement
of
God
enioyne
both
labour
and
rest
on
the
same
day
?
Is
there
fast
and
loose
in
the
same
commandement
with
God
?
Thou
shalt
worke
on
the
first
day
saith
that
,
and
worke
on
the
seaventh
saith
this
.
Can
the
Church
make
these
the
same
commandement
?
But
say
the
Church
hath
this
incredible
&
vnconceivable
power
:
Say
it
may
forbid
to
worke
on
the
first
day
,
by
the
vertue
of
the
very
same
precept
.
That
doth
neither
expresly
command
or
license
to
worke
on
that
day
.
Say
that
the
Church
of
God
may
translate
the
commandement
of
God
from
one
day
to
another
at
their
pleasure
,
did
they
it
therefore
?
I
spake
before
of
their
authority
whether
they
might
doe
it
.
I
enquire
now
of
the
act
,
whether
they
did
it
;
did
the
Church
(
I
say
)
ever
constitute
,
that
the
same
obligation
of
Gods
commandement
which
lay
on
the
Iewes
,
for
keeping
of
the
Sabaoth
day
should
be
translated
and
laid
vpon
the
Christians
for
keeping
of
the
Lords
day
?
Did
the
Church
this
,
no
no
,
they
did
it
not
;
all
the
wit
&
learning
in
the
World
will
not
proue
it
.
But
you
may
obiect
,
if
the
old
Sabaoth
vanished
It
is
not
therefore
the
translation
of
the
old
commandement
of
God
from
the
one
day
to
the
other
(
which
yet
if
it
were
translated
)
can
oblige
servants
no
otherwise
then
it
did
vnder
the
old
law
)
but
the
institution
of
a
new
commandement
,
of
the
Church
her selfe
(
yet
guided
by
the
spirit
of
God
)
that
consecrated
that
day
to
the
solemne
seruice
of
God
;
what
then
doth
not
the
constitution
of
the
Church
,
for
the
celebration
of
the
Lords
day
,
binde
equally
the
consciences
of
men
as
the
old
commandement
did
,
for
the
celebration
of
the
Sabaoth
?
Binde
it
doth
,
but
not
equally
:
for
the
Church
is
no
way
equall
vnto
God
;
the
authority
of
it
is
lesse
then
the
authority
of
God
,
therefore
is
the
obligation
of
the
Churches
ordinance
,
lesse
then
the
obligation
of
Gods
ordinance
.
But
yet
binde
the
conscience
it
doth
,
and
that
firmely
and
effectually
,
(
even
the
conscience
of
every
member
of
the
Church
)
to
true
and
exact
obedience
.
For
he
*
that
heareth
not
the
Church
is
no
better
then
an
heathen
or
a
publican
.
And
neuer
was
Church
on
earth
more
vndefiled
then
that
that
ordained
that
institution
.
He
that
despiseth
the
Apostles
of
Christ
despiseth
Christ
himselfe
,
and
the
Apostles
were
governours
of
that
Church
:
for
acknowledged
it
is
that
the
celebration
of
the
Lords
day
,
was
the
ordinance
of
that
Church
and
of
those
gouernours
.
Therefore
it
is
sure
that
that
ordinance
doth
oblige
the
conscience
of
every
Christian
man
;
but
if
you
aske
me
how
farre
doth
that
constitution
of
the
Church
oblige
the
conscience
?
I
answere
you
as
farre
as
it
doth
command
,
(
you
will
desire
no
more
)
further
it
cannot
:
It
cannot
oblige
further
,
then
it
doth
ordaine
;
it
cannot
bind
the
conscience
for
guiltinesse
,
further
then
it
doth
for
obedience
;
because
all
guiltinesse
doth
presuppose
disobedience
;
now
that
the
Church
ordained
solemne
assemblies
of
Christians
,
to
be
celebrated
that
day
to
the
honour
of
God
,
and
in
them
the
invocation
of
Gods
holy
name
,
thankesgiuing
,
hearing
of
the
holy
Scriptures
and
receiuing
of
the
Sacraments
,
is
not
denied
;
It
is
out
of
question
,
all
antiquity
affordeth
plentifull
remembrance
of
it
.
But
that
it
inioyneth
that
severe
&
exact
vacation
,
from
all
workes
on
the
Lords
day
,
which
the
commandement
of
God
required
in
the
Iewes
Sabaoth
,
you
will
never
proue
.
It
relisheth
too
much
of
the
Iewish
ceremonies
,
to
be
proued
by
Christian
divinity
.
For
this
is
no
proofe
of
it
,
that
the
Lords
day
is
succeeded
in
place
of
the
Sabaoth
.
Or
as
some
diuines
tearme
it
,
as
the
heyre
of
the
Sabaoth
.
It
is
I
say
no
proofe
at
all
,
(
except
it
were
established
by
the
same
authority
,
and
the
observance
of
it
,
charged
with
the
same
strictnesse
of
commandement
)
for
if
it
succeede
the
sabaoth
in
place
,
must
it
therefore
succeed
in
equall
precisenesse
of
obseruation
?
(
So
if
the
Pope
succeedeth
Peter
in
place
,
must
he
therefore
succeede
him
in
equality
of
power
?
)
the
Lords
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
extreame
vacation
,
from
every
kinde
of
worke
,
for
that
the
Church
hath
not
commanded
:
and
so
although
the
Lords
day
may
well
be
tearmed
the
heire
of
the
Sabaoth
,
yet
is
it
not
ex
asse
haeres
as
the
civill
lawyers
speake
.
It
inheriteth
not
the
whole
right
of
the
Sabaoth
,
for
that
right
and
prerogatiue
of
the
Saoth
was
not
giuen
to
the
Sabaoth
and
its
heires
;
it
it
was
no
fee
simple
(
and
if
I
may
speake
in
the
lawyers
stile
)
it
was
only
a
tenure
for
tearme
of
life
:
namely
during
the
life
of
the
ceremoniall
law
,
which
life
ended
in
the
death
of
our
Saviour
.
This
reason
therefore
of
the
succession
of
the
Lords
day
in
place
of
the
Sabaoth
is
no
reason
.
Any
other
reason
besides
this
or
else
authority
which
I
might
in
your
behalfe
obiect
to
my selfe
,
I
know
none
worthy
mentioning
:
for
the
commandement
of
God
as
I
haue
proved
is
not
of
this
day
.
The
commandement
of
the
Church
is
of
this
day
,
but
not
of
these
workes
,
neither
will
all
the
histories
of
the
ancient
Church
,
nor
cannons
of
the
ancient
councells
,
nor
any
other
monuments
or
registers
of
antiquity
afford
you
(
as
I
am
certainly
perswaded
search
them
as
curiously
as
you
can
)
record
of
any
such
constitution
of
the
Church
for
the
generall
restraint
of
workes
on
the
Lords
day
;
you
may
finde
I
know
in
some
of
the
ancient
Fathers
much
sounding
the
prerogatiue
of
that
day
:
as
that
it
was
a
holy
day
in
[
*
](A16722-e2990-b)
*
Hist.
Eccles.
lib.
4.
cap.
22.
Eusebius
:
a
day
of
Christian
assemblies
in
[
*
](A16722-e3010-b)
*
Apolog.
2.
Iustin
Martyr
;
and
a
day
of
reioycing
in
[
*
](A16722-e3040-b)
*
Apologe
.
cap.
16.
Tertullian
:
a
festivall
day
in
[
*
](A16722-e3070-b)
*
Epi.
ad
mag
.
Ignatius
;
and
some
more
of
the
like
,
but
doth
any
of
all
these
import
or
imply
a
generall
restraint
?
a
desistance
from
all
worke
?
No
,
they
doe
not
;
neither
shall
you
finde
in
these
,
nor
in
any
other
records
of
antiquity
any
constitutions
of
the
Apostles
;
and
of
the
first
Church
extant
to
haue
effect
;
no
nor
any
relation
or
remembrance
that
such
a
constitution
had
ever
beene
made
by
them
nay
I
finde
cleare
evidence
to
the
contrary
,
for
would
Constantine
the
Great
(
that
most
holy
Emperour
and
the
best
nursing
Father
of
Christian
religion
that
ever
Prince
was
)
would
he
I
say
haue
licensed
by
his
decree
,
the
country
people
freely
(
libere
liciteque
are
the
words
of
the
constitution
)
to
attend
their
sowing
of
graine
,
setting
of
vines
,
and
other
husbandry
on
the
Lords
day
,
if
those
workes
had
beene
forbidden
by
the
commandement
of
God
,
or
decree
of
the
Apostles
,
and
first
Church
?
Or
would
the
Fathers
in
the
councell
of
Laodicea
(
one
of
the
most
ancient
&
approued
councells
of
the
Church
)
enioyne
the
vacancy
of
the
Lords
day
with
this
condition
;
And
if
men
can
?
Certainly
servants
full
ill
can
if
they
bee
constrained
by
their
Masters
to
worke
:
would
they
I
say
haue
added
such
a
condition
,
had
it
beene
simply
vnlawfull
,
for
all
sorts
of
people
by
the
ancient
sanctification
of
the
first
Church
to
doe
any
worke
that
day
?
It
appeareth
therefore
that
there
were
no
such
vniversall
constitutions
of
the
Church
.
The
actuall
forbearing
of
all
workes
by
some
Christians
that
day
I
stand
not
on
:
nor
on
the
exhortations
of
some
ancient
Fathers
to
that
purpose
,
some
remembrances
of
both
are
to
be
found
I
know
,
but
these
are
particular
examples
,
and
perswasions
;
constitutions
of
the
Church
they
are
not
,
edicts
of
sundry
Princes
likewise
,
and
decrees
of
some
provinciall
councells
are
extant
I
confesse
in
record
to
the
same
effect
,
and
those
are
constitutions
indeede
but
partly
,
not
of
the
Church
,
partly
not
vniversall
,
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
goverment
of
the
whole
Church
by
our
Saviour
was
committed
)
and
the
canons
of
the
vniversall
Synods
no
positiue
constitution
can
doe
.
What
then
?
Would
I
set
at
liberty
that
euery
man
may
freely
prophane
the
Lords
day
with
extraordinary
labour
?
No
,
I
would
not
,
I
confesse
it
is
meete
Christians
should
abandon
all
worldly
affaires
that
day
and
dedicate
it
wholly
to
the
honour
of
God
,
that
Christians
should
not
be
lesse
devout
&
religious
in
celebrating
of
the
Lords
day
,
then
the
Iewes
were
in
celebrating
of
there
Sabaoth
,
for
the
obligation
of
our
thankfulnes
to
God
is
more
then
theirs
,
although
the
obligation
of
his
commandement
to
vs
in
that
behalfe
is
lesse
;
Meete
it
is
I
say
.
And
wish
with
all
my
heart
it
were
most
religiously
performed
euen
with
all
abstinence
from
worldly
affaires
,
and
all
attendance
to
Godly
devotion
.
But
yet
notwithstanding
I
deny
that
together
with
the
institution
of
the
Lords
day
there
was
any
such
constitution
of
theChurch
established
whereby
men
were
obliged
to
the
strict
desisting
from
all
worke
.
But
what
doth
the
honour
of
God
then
stand
at
the
courtesie
of
man
to
prophane
that
day
(
if
they
list
)
with
worke
at
their
pleasure
?
Not
so
,
for
beside
the
constitutions
of
some
ancient
councells
both
the
edicts
of
christian
Princes
haue
every
where
restrained
that
prophanation
:
neither
of
which
(
for
matters
that
fall
vnder
their
power
)
can
bee
transgressed
without
sinne
and
disobedience
to
God
,
whose
commandements
although
not
directly
yet
reductiuely
)
those
constitutions
are
:
for
God
hath
commanded
all
men
to
honour
their
Parents
(
the
parents
of
their
country
)
stand
in
the
first
ranke
.
The
sonne
of
God
hath
commanded
all
Christians
to
heare
the
Church
,
and
that
vnder
forfeiture
of
communion
of
Saints
,
but
they
that
despise
the
Canons
of
the
Church
,
or
edicts
of
the
Prince
,
heare
not
the
one
,
honour
not
the
other
,
therefore
they
that
transgresse
either
of
these
constitutions
,
transgresse
also
Consequently
I
say
though
not
immediatly
the
commandements
of
God
,
but
yet
neither
of
them
both
(
to
come
neare
home
)
are
transgressed
by
servants
if
they
worke
by
their
Masters
commission
,
and
not
of
their
owne
election
,
for
neither
doth
the
one
law
or
the
other
giue
liberty
and
warrant
to
Servants
to
be
rebellious
to
their
Masters
touching
point
of
service
,
that
day
more
then
others
.
But
in
forbidding
of
worke
,
first
they
intend
not
your
precise
abstinence
from
any
light
and
labourlesse
worke
as
both
the
censure
of
the
Church
,
and
iudgement
of
temporall
Magistrats
make
manifest
,
which
neuer
tooke
hold
on
any
man
for
such
manner
of
workes
.
And
secondly
they
purpose
to
forbid
the
Masters
commanding
or
allowing
of
worke
and
not
the
servants
obeying
if
he
be
commanded
;
for
the
law
is
intended
and
taketh
hold
of
them
that
haue
the
liberty
and
power
to
keepe
it
,
not
of
them
that
haue
not
,
but
are
meerely
vnder
the
power
and
disposition
of
another
man
,
wherefore
if
Servants
worke
on
the
Lords
day
of
their
owne
choice
,
it
is
their
owne
sinne
,
but
if
their
Masters
command
,
it
is
their
masters
sinne
.
And
he
standeth
bound
to
answere
the
law
,
no
warrant
therefore
,
nor
incouragement
haue
servants
by
any
of
these
lawes
,
to
reiect
their
commandements
touching
matter
of
worke
or
service
on
the
Sabaoth
or
any
other
day
.
And
is
not
this
more
agreeable
to
the
doctrine
of
the
holy
Apostles
of
our
Saviour
,
every
where
delivered
touching
servants
?
Doe
they
not
often
,
and
with
exceeding
earnestnes
command
and
exhort
them
to
obedience
,
no
where
permitting
them
any
point
of
liberty
,
and
that
without
exception
of
Master
,
of
labour
,
or
of
time
?
for
(
that
we
may
take
a
very
short
view
of
their
doctrine
touching
servants
obedience
)
what
masters
are
they
to
whom
servants
ought
to
be
obedient
?
Infidells
and
beleeuers
saith
Paul
〈◊〉
.
Tim.
6.
1.
2.
Covetous
and
froward
saith
Peter
1.
Pet.
2.
18.
that
is
,
even
to
all
,
obedient
to
all
.
How
?
In
what
sort
?
From
the
heart
saith
the
Apostle
,
Collos.
3.
23.
in
singlenesse
of
heart
as
vnto
Christ
in
another
place
:
Ephes.
6.
5.
without
any
replying
,
not
so
much
as
answering
againe
.
In
a
third
Titus
.
3.
9.
That
is
in
all
readinesse
and
humility
,
obedient
to
all
in
such
sort
:
how
farre
?
In
what
points
?
Even
in
all
things
:
servants
be
obedient
to
your
Masters
in
all
things
.
Colos.
3.
22.
please
them
in
all
things
,
Titus
.
2
,
9.
thinke
them
worthy
of
all
honour
.
1.
Tim.
6.
1.
In
all
things
?
Yea
in
all
things
belonging
to
the
condition
of
Servants
;
that
is
in
all
service
,
in
all
labour
which
is
the
proper
character
of
all
servants
,
and
(
obedient
to
them
in
all
things
)
why
?
That
the
name
of
God
and
his
doctrine
be
not
evill
spoken
of
,
1.
Tim.
6.
1.
which
two
last
points
of
the
Apostles
doctrine
touching
servants
obedience
I
would
advise
you
Sr
specially
to
consider
,
for
whereas
it
is
out
of
question
,
that
infidells
exacted
workes
of
their
Christian
servants
(
as
in
the
beginning
of
the
Church
many
beleeuing
seruants
had
vnbeleeuing
masters
)
on
the
Lords
day
no
lesse
then
others
;
if
their
yeelding
to
that
exacting
of
their
Masters
had
beene
sinne
;
would
he
haue
commanded
them
to
obey
their
Masters
in
all
things
?
And
to
please
them
in
all
things
without
excepting
of
any
day
or
of
any
labour
?
For
that
heathen
Masters
would
exact
of
Christian
servants
their
ordinary
labour
and
service
on
the
Lords
day
as
well
as
on
others
you
haue
no
reason
to
doubt
,
except
you
thinke
that
heathen
men
would
tender
and
respect
more
the
religion
of
their
Seruants
(
that
religion
which
themselues
esteemed
to
be
superstition
&
folly
)
then
their
owne
profit
.
And
then
if
Christian
seruants
should
haue
withdrawen
their
obedience
that
day
reiecting
and
resisting
their
Masters
commandements
,
whereas
their
vnbeleeuing
servants
willingly
obeyed
them
,
and
laboured
for
their
profit
,
had
they
not
caused
the
name
of
God
which
they
worshipped
to
be
blaspheamed
and
the
doctrine
which
they
professed
to
be
evill
spoken
of
?
(
which
was
the
point
of
the
Apostles
doctrine
I
especially
remembred
you
of
)
That
God
I
say
which
commanded
and
that
doctrine
which
instructed
servants
to
disobey
their
Masters
,
&
by
depriving
them
of
their
seruice
caused
their
hindrance
?
The
Apostle
knew
full
well
this
was
not
the
way
to
propagate
the
Gospell
,
and
enlarge
the
kingdome
of
Christ
,
he
knew
it
was
Christian
meekenes
&
obedience
,
&
humility
,
&
patience
that
must
doe
it
:
&
therefore
he
commandeth
Christian
servants
to
giue
their
Masters
all
honour
,
to
obey
them
in
all
things
,
&
to
please
them
in
all
things
that
so
their
Masters
seeing
them
more
serviceable
&
profitable
servants
,
&
withall
more
vertuous
then
others
were
,
might
sooner
be
drawen
to
like
of
the
religion
that
made
them
such
,
whereas
the
contrary
would
haue
bin
manifestly
a
scandall
,
and
grievous
impeachment
to
the
propagation
of
the
gospell
,
&
defamed
it
,
for
a
doctrine
of
contumacy
and
disobedience
,
and
for
a
seminary
(
as
it
were
)
of
disturbance
and
sedition
of
families
and
common-wealths
.
And
not
only
alienated
the
affections
of
Masters
from
their
Christian
servants
:
but
inflamed
all
men
with
indignation
&
hatred
against
the
Christian
religion
and
the
professors
of
it
.
Such
therefore
evidently
is
the
importance
and
intendment
of
the
Apostles
doctrine
(
as
vnpartiall
men
whom
preiudice
or
selfe-conceipt
leads
not
away
,
may
soone
discerne
)
very
farre
differing
from
this
doctrine
of
yours
.
Touching
which
point
of
the
Apostles
instruction
giuen
to
servants
for
this
effectuall
and
generall
obedience
,
you
will
not
reply
(
I
hope
)
as
some
haue
done
;
that
at
first
indeede
it
was
permitted
for
the
good
of
the
Church
least
the
increase
of
it
,
and
proceeding
of
the
Gospell
should
be
hindred
by
offence
given
to
the
Gentiles
.
For
would
that
haue
beene
permitted
if
it
had
beene
vnlawfull
?
Or
could
the
Church
of
God
be
increased
by
the
sinnes
of
men
?
His
Church
increased
by
that
whereby
himselfe
was
dishonoured
?
Or
would
the
Apostles
haue
permitted
men
to
sinne
(
as
now
Iesuits
doe
)
for
the
good
of
the
Church
(
nay
exhorted
and
commanded
to
it
)
who
had
himselfe
expresly
taught
that
wee
must
not
doe
evill
that
good
may
come
of
it
.
No
neither
of
both
can
be
,
because
either
of
both
were
a
staine
,
and
derogation
to
the
righteousnesse
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
workes
that
belong
to
the
duty
of
servants
,
namely
that
were
in
themselues
honest
and
lawfull
without
excepting
of
any
day
.
Neither
shall
you
finde
(
as
I
am
verily
perswaded
and
I
speake
not
at
randome
)
if
all
the
monuments
of
antiquity
be
searched
through
either
the
practise
of
Christian
seruants
,
or
the
doctrine
of
Christian
preachers
to
haue
beene
any
other
,
I
say
you
shall
not
finde
any
remembrance
in
the
ancient
Church
(
if
you
search
the
bookes
of
histories
)
that
it
was
the
custome
of
Christian
seruants
to
withdraw
their
obedience
from
their
Masters
on
the
Lords
day
,
no
(
if
you
search
the
bookes
of
doctrine
)
that
every
any
Father
or
teacher
of
the
Church
so
perswaded
or
instructed
them
:
no
,
nor
yet
if
you
adde
to
them
the
Heathen
writers
also
,
that
liued
in
the
age
of
the
ancient
Church
,
and
whereof
diverse
were
sharpe
and
bitter
enemies
to
the
Christian
religion
,
and
apt
to
take
every
advantage
to
calumniate
and
disgrace
it
(
such
as
Lucian
,
Porphyrie
,
Iulian
,
Libanius
;
Eunapius
and
others
were
)
you
shall
never
finde
the
detraction
of
servants
obedience
,
obiected
to
Christians
;
And
certainly
if
in
all
antiquity
,
no
history
be
found
to
record
it
,
no
father
to
perswade
it
,
no
enemy
toobiect
it
,
it
may
well
seeme
evident
that
this
doctrine
of
seruants
withdrawing
obedience
from
their
masters
,
for
worke
on
the
Lords
day
was
neither
taught
nor
practised
in
the
ancient
Church
.
And
therefore
Sr
to
draw
to
an
end
(
for
I
grow
weary
,
&
haue
already
both
dulled
my
penne
and
my selfe
)
I
would
advise
you
in
the
name
of
Iesus
Christ
,
whose
Minister
you
are
&
whose
worke
you
haue
in
hand
,
to
examine
this
doctrine
of
yours
,
what
foundation
it
may
haue
in
the
word
of
God
&
what
effect
in
the
Church
of
God
;
least
the
foundation
happily
be
your
owne
phantasie
not
Gods
word
&
the
effect
proue
the
poysoning
not
the
norishing
of
the
church
.
I
know
Sr
you
are
not
the
first
that
set
this
doctrine
abroach
,
nor
the
only
man
that
drawes
of
the
vessell
,
although
few
draw
so
freely
as
you
.
But
I
would
advise
you
sir
in
the
name
of
God
to
beware
betimes
&
draw
not
too
deepe
.
It
is
all
nought
,
it
relisheth
already
with
them
that
haue
good
tasts
,
like
the
water
of
Marah
.
It
will
proue
like
that
of
Meribah
a
little
lower
&
if
you
happe
to
draw
to
the
bottome
you
will
finde
the
dreggs
to
be
nothing
but
disturbance
and
sedition
both
in
Church
and
Commonwealth
.
But
I
say
in
the
beginning
,
I
would
neither
censure
nor
divine
of
the
evill
consequence
of
this
Doctrine
:
let
them
censure
(
if
they
will
)
to
to
whom
the
goverment
of
the
Church
and
Commonwealth
,
and
provision
of
peace
in
both
doth
belong
.
And
to
divine
(
me
thinkes
)
there
is
little
neede
;
the
events
are
too
evident
euen
to
meane
foresights
already
to
require
divination
:
for
who
(
when
he
seeth
that
seede
sowen
)
doubts
what
graine
will
be
reaped
in
heavinesse
?
I
will
therefore
neither
censure
nor
divine
of
the
fruits
of
your
doctrine
,
but
omit
both
and
make
an
end
.
If
the
reasons
which
I
haue
produced
against
your
opinion
satisfie
not
you
,
you
may
doe
well
to
satisfie
them
.
And
to
establish
your
doctrine
with
better
.
It
is
the
part
of
Christs
minister
,
to
giue
a
reason
of
his
doctrine
when
it
is
called
in
question
,
and
accused
of
novelty
and
of
sinfull
consequence
,
as
I
accuse
yours
:
and
if
you
take
me
to
be
in
an
errour
and
bee
able
to
reforme
it
,
it
is
your
duty
to
doe
it
.
If
your
brothers
beast
went
a
stray
,
you
were
to
reduce
it
homeby
Moses
law
.
Christs
law
will
lesse
suffer
you
,
to
see
your
brother
goe
astray
and
not
restore
him
.
Wherefore
if
you
be
assured
that
your
doctrine
is
truly
Christian
and
be
able
to
iustify
it
;
you
are
bound
to
doe
it
.
The
faith
you
owe
to
Christ
,
whose
minister
you
are
,
the
charity
you
owe
to
Christians
,
whose
pastor
or
doctor
you
are
,
exact
it
of
you
,
and
I
especially
chalenge
it
,
that
haue
felt
my selfe
specially
greeued
,
and
(
as
I
thinke
)
wronged
by
occasion
of
it
,
I
looke
therefore
you
should
both
answere
my
arguments
,
if
they
perswade
you
not
,
and
produce
better
to
perswade
me
;
but
first
in
your
answers
,
I
must
intreat
you
to
deale
with
me
(
as
I
would
with
you
)
honestly
and
ingeniously
,
and
without
either
perverting
or
shifting
of
any
arguments
;
to
answere
directly
to
the
force
of
them
.
And
secondly
in
your
reasons
to
let
me
haue
as
few
words
as
you
will
,
but
direct
and
materiall
arguments
;
For
if
they
be
light
and
haue
but
small
force
,
they
will
not
moue
me
.
If
sophisticall
&
haue
but
seeming
force
,
I
shall
espy
the
deceit
,
I
thinke
and
be
able
to
discerne
betwixt
a
visard
and
a
visage
;
both
the
one
sort
and
the
other
of
such
arguments
will
but
preiudice
your
cause
with
me
,
&
were
better
kept
for
some
other
disciple
;
but
if
you
finde
your selfe
not
able
to
establish
and
iustify
this
doctrine
wherewith
I
take
my
poore
kinsman
to
haue
beene
corrupted
,
then
I
challenge
you
as
you
will
answere
it
at
the
judgement
seat
of
almighty
God
when
your
accounting
day
shall
come
,
to
repaire
the
ruine
you
haue
made
in
his
conscience
,
and
(
remoouing
his
scandall
which
hindreth
him
in
his
vocation
)
to
establish
him
in
his
former
obedience
to
his
Master
.
So
fare
you
well
;
and
the
spirit
of
truth
bee
with
you
.
May
16.
1611.
At
Gresham
house
in
London
.