Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	work_n	work_v	worthy_a	39	3	6.2518	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A16722	A learned treatise of the Sabaoth, written by Mr Edward Brerewood, professor in Gresham Colledge, London. To Mr Nicolas Byfield, preacher in Chester. With Mr Byfields answere and Mr Brerewoods reply; Learned treatise of the Sabbath	Brerewood, Edward, 1565?-1613.; Byfield, Nicholas, 1579-1622. aut	1630 (1630)	STC 3622; ESTC S106416	30,804	60

for it if they did soe worke It is therefore to be vnderstood of them that worke willingly of themselues or as authors cause others to worke as masters doe their servants not of them who only as ministers and against their wills are set to worke And rather because the worke of the servant that I say which hee doth by the commandement of his master to whom for matter of labour he is meerely subordinate euen reason and equity will interpret the masters worke And certainly that God accounteth it so the declaratiō of that precept in another place doth make manifest 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 apparēt 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 you that that and some other were but ceremoniall precepts not morall and belonged to the curious observance of the commandement and therefore obliged the Iewes and none else for that such light and labourlesse workes on the Sabaoth were no transgression at all of the morall commandement the practise of him whose every action was our instruction of him who was the giuer of the law as God and the only keeper of it as man will put all out of questiō for had that exact and extreame vacation on the Sabaoth beene required by Gods morall commandement and so every light worke beene a transgression of it would not our Sauiour haue repooued the Iewes 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 S r 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 plucking of eares of corne and rubbing out the graines on the Sabaoth day as he did in his disciples or would he himselfe 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 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 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

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 worke vpon the Sabaoth be the Masters sinne that imposeth it Is it not sinne to giue consent and furtherance to another mans sinne But this servants doe when they execute their Masters commandements and consequently it is vnlawfull so to yeeld lawfull therefore it is to resist and reiect such cōmandement I answere first touching the pointe of consenting that in such a worke is to be considered the substance and the quality that is the worke it selfe the sinfulnesse of it seruants may consent to it as it is their masters worke not as it is their Masters sinne for except these things be distinguished God himselfe can no more avoide the calumniation of being the author then poore servants of being the ministers of sinne for that God concurreth with euery man to every action whatsoeuer 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 proceede into act without his present assistance and operation but yet to the crime the faultinesse the inordination the vnlawfulnesse of the action wherein the nature of sinne doth 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 of the annexed sinne to resist or reiect his Masters commandement touching the worke for in obeying he is at most but the minister of another mans sinne and that as they say per accidence namely as it is annexed to such a worke but in resisting he is directly the author of his owne sinne by withdrawing his obedience about bodily seruice from him that is his Lord according to the flesh euen that obedience wherein both by his owne covenant and the law of nations he standeth bound vnto him and that without any exception of the Sabaoth more then other daies And is it wisdome in a seruant to commit himselfe sinne to prevent his Masters sinne That is to offend God himselfe least another man should offend him no not so wee must not doe evill that good may come thereon especially doe evill our selues that anothers good may come of it rather wee must carry two eyes about vs that while wee looke with one to the end that is to the glory of God we looke with another to the means that they be lawfull and agreeable to the will of God and not dishonour him with our sinfull actions while we would honour him with our good intentions But yet one scruple remaineth because every person that did any worke on the Sabaoth day was by the law to be cut off from his people and to dye the death every person therefore the servant as well as the master I answere that the iudiciall commandement is to be vnderstood of the same persons to whom the morall commandement was giuen the commandement touching punishment of them to whom the commandement the offence was imposed but I prooued before that the morall commandement was not imposed to servants as seruants but to them that were at liberty All they therefore that did any worke on the Sabaoth were to dy the death by the Iudiciall law they I say that did it not they that were made to doe it which were as well passiue as actiue in doing of it namely they that did it of election as free that might obstaine from worke and would not not they that did it of iniunction and necessity as seruants that would abstaine from worke and might not whose condition was such that they would not worke by their masters direction might be made to worke by their masters compulsion for a hard case it were if poore servants to whom no commandement to cease from worke was giuen by God and yet might be compelled to worke by men should dye

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 Eusebius a day of Christian assemblies in Iustin Martyr and a day of reioycing in Tertullian a festivall day in Ignatius and some more of the like but doth any of all these import or imply a generall restraint a desistāce 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 constitutiō 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