Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	bind_v	law_n	obligation_n	1,168	5	9.4651	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A17418	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 Commandement is given to the servant and not to the master onely. Seecondly, that the fourth Commandement is morall. Thirdly, that our owne light workes as well as gainefull and toilesome 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 industrie of an unworthy labourer in Gods vineyard, Richard Byfield, pastor in Long Ditton in Surrey.	Byfield, Richard, 1598?-1664.	1631 (1631)	STC 4238; ESTC S107155	139,589	186

juris sut nor operum suorum domini as Lawyers speake they are but their masters living instruments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle tearmeth them they have no right or power to dispose of themselves 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 service under the power and commandement of their masters and under their power for service onely in such sort as they can neither justly performe any labour which their masters forbid nor omit any which their Masters command but are under 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 over their children not only a directive but a corrective and coactive 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 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 enjoyne the masters that they should not command than injoyne the servants not to obey for the poore servants if their masters command them could not chuse but worke the law of nations bound them unto it which had put them under their masters power and inforcement but the masters might forbeare to command there was no law that bound them to that or injoyned them to exact ought of their servants Answer First here begin your reasons the first whereof is taken from the equitie and wisedome of God and it stands thus in briefe It was more equity and wisedome to impose the commandement on masters for their servants and children rather than on the children and servants themselves who are under their masters power and inforcement Therfore what You leave us to gather up the conclusion for you may bee ashamed indeed of the consequence which is this Therefore it is against Gods wisedome and equitie to impose it on servants and children also it is more wisedome and equity to doe the one you say is it therefore against wisedome and equitie to doe the other also If the first be more equall and wise the second joyned to the first is of equitie and wisedome and no rashnesse nor iniquitie as you lavishly terme it It is given to masters for their servants you say and rightly is it therefore not intended to oblige servants also Wee grant it is more equity and wisedome to impose it chiefly on masters that they insnare not the servants and that they provide that the worship of God and his religion may bee 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 chiefly on the servants who have no authority over others but are under the authority of another but this hindreth not the imposing hereof on the servant also who shall answer for his owne soule to God and cannot bee excused by the command of his master Secondly but in your discourse divers things suffer exception as most unsound as First that they are meerely under their masters power this confuted before in Chap. 5. Secondly that they are under their power for service onely which is most false for in this fourth Commandement they are put under their power directive and coactive for duties of Religion And this your position overthrowes the power of Princes over their subjects in matters of Religion A wicked doctrine Thirdly that they cannot justly performe any labour their masters forbid They may in case the masters life or livelihood be in manifest hazzard by obeying the masters prohibition as in Abigaïls case o 1 Sam. 25. 18 19. They may lift their neighbor out of a pit or save him from some imminent danger or losse though the master should forbid it Fourthly that they may not omit any labour which their masters command They may omit the labour which will manifestly creeple them and ought to doe it by vertue of the sixth Commandement Thou shalt not kill And so that phrase of yours in pag. 9. l. 7. overset with sixe dayes toyle if spoken as a thing lawfull on the masters part to overset his servant is sinfull Againe they may omit the labour that is against the commandement of an higher power as Thomas Aquinas sheweth in his Summes 22a. q. 104. art 5. Fiftly that servants are vtterly void of power and liberty to obey the commandement of God in resting on the Sabbath when their master bids them worke This is manifestly false for First if they are not void of liberty to refuse workes that will creeple them on any day then much lesse are they not void of liberty to refuse such workes on that day They are not void of liberty to refuse such uncessant imployments as will not give them leave to take breath in as much as that will kill them Now to worke the seventh day too is to have no time to take breath as the phrase is in Exod. 23. 12. That the sonne of thy hand-maid and the stranger may take breath And so in the other cases forementioned Secondly they have power to refuse a thing unlawfull but the servants worke that day is a thing unlawfull for it is forbidden as your selfe 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 Gods solemne worship and service and such a bargaine 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 Hieronymꝰ 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 hee 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 confesse ought not to command then the servant is

care not to violate embassadours eleventhly marriages forbidden with them of another Nation Now that the imposing of this commandement of the Sabbath on servants also should occasion the breach of the Law of Nations is a meere pretence for the Law of Nations could never charge servants with such a subjection as should crosse 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 bee left in a condition wherein he should never have power to frequent the solemne worship of God as will of necessity follow if he be alwayes absolutely as you teach his masters Shew 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 Natures 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 farre and so universally degenerate yet this without all controversie determines this case u Ius Gentium quum sit positivum non potest derogare juri naturae Ioh. 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 custome 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 solemnely 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 Commandements 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 Commandements 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 perversenesse no Law it is not Law but lees but strife but a destroyer but error but tiranny any thing rather than Law as all the learned conclude If you or any can shew such a Law or rather lees of Nations blessed be God in his wisedome justice and equity for ever who by his eternall Law freeth poore servants from such tyrannous exact on Secondly as our doctrine is wine that comes of the pure grape so yours is the poyson of Dragons pressed from the vine of Sodome for I affirme that it produceth all the former evils For this That the servant is left even the Sabbath day also meerely in his masters power to be obedient to his commands for servile works first it would occasion rebellion in the servant through bitternesse of soule arising from an unsupportable burden secondly and so from thence just punishment on the servant if the masters strength can reach them to inflict it or from superiour Magistrates and thirdly evert the Law of Nations by striking at the life of Religion and Societies in the first and fundamentall 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 holinesse 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 oxe or asse for God will be the avenger of that injustice his poore creature being mercilesly used but for this God you say provides that the servant must of conscience obey and so Gods justice wisedome goodnesse and the ends of giving the commandement in regard of the servant shall bee impeached and wholly frustrate Thirdly and lastly you overthrow your owne 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 hee 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 Gods command by your owne confession and y Quisque ex tharitate propria tenetur non amittere libertatem sine gravi causa Ioh. de Sal. tract de leg q. 91. disp 2. Sect. 5. because every one of charity to himselfe 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 masters power be determined the servant is freed but if he have power how is it notwithstanding herein determined Againe if the master must not only discharge the servant of worke but in stead thereof charge him to the exercises of holinesse the servant must needs in obeying his masters sinfull command of working flee off from his charge and power to charge him at that time of his so labouring in the duties of holinesse seeing no man can doe two things chiefly of this nature at once CHAP. 12. Breerwood Pag. 15 16 17. ANd was it not also to his goodnesse and compassion For say that the commandement touching servants vacation was given to themselves 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 injoyne him some worke on the Sabaoth day covetous masters may soone doe it especially if they thinke that precept touching their servants cessation not to touch them or else they may bee ignorant of the law of God as Christians and Jewes may happily serve Pagans Admit I say some Master commands his servant to work 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 Charybdit standeth perplexed and 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 servant from obeying his Master and yet not restraine the Master from commanding his servant unlawfull things As it is also another absurdity that that day which by the law given

briefly all those which while they are performed as by the Servants of men they that doe then are not impeached for being the servants of God That is to say the workes of labour but not the workes of sinne 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 immediatly forbidden them for it i● cleare that all the other commandements 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 equall obligation and so was it altogether convenient because they are no lesse the secret lawes of nature than the revealed Lawes of God and no lesse 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 Schoolemen say exsuogenere are evill but the commandement that forbiddeth servile workes on the Sabaoth is of a different sort first because the servant is touching the matter which it forbiddeth labour wholly subject 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 exsuogenere as the matters of the other negative commandements are but only circumstantially because it s done upon such a day for idolatry blasphemy dishonouring of Parents murther adultery theft false testimony coveting of that is other mens which are the matter of other commandements are evill in their owne nature and therefore forbidden because they are evill 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 native ilnesse in the other causeth the prohibition but the prohibition in this causeth the evill for laboring on the seventh day if God had not forbiddē it had not bin evil at al no more than 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 bee withdrawne from their bodily labours and to be dedicated to the honour of God which even the prophanest Gentiles amidst all the blind superstition and darkenesse wherewith they were covered 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 observe one day in the number of seven as a certaine day of that number and namely the seventh in the ranke or a whole day by the revolution of the Sunne and with that severe exactnesse of restraining all worke as was injoyned to the Iewes is but meerely ceremoniall brought in by positive Law and is not of the law of nature For had that forme of keeping Sabaoth bin a law of nature then had it obliged the Gentiles as well as the Iewes seeing they participate both equall in the Exod. 31. 13. Ezek. 20. 12. 30. same nature yet it did not so but was given to the Israelites to bee a speciall marke of their separation from the Gentiles and of their particular participation to God neither shall wee finde either in the writings of Heathen men whereof some were in their kinde very religious that any of them had ever any sense of it or in the records of Moses that it was ever observed by any of the holy Patriarchs before it was pronounced in mount Sinai But if it had beene a law of nature her selfe and so had obliged all the Patriarchs and as large as nature her selfe and so obliged all the Gentiles and had it not beene as durable as nature too and so obliged us Christians also Certainely it had for if that precise vacation and sanctification of the Sabaoth day had consisted by the law of nature then must it have beene by the decree of all Divines immutable and consequently right grievous should the sinne of Christians be which now prophane that day with ordinary labours and chiefly theirs which first translated the celebration of that day being the seventh to the first day of the weeke who yet are certainly supposed to be none other than the Apostles of our Saviour To turne to the point and clearely to determine it the master only is accountable unto 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 sin and how for the workes of labour Namely if hee doe them not absolutely of his owne election but respectively as of obedience to his masters command for touching labours servants are directly obliged to their masters But touching sinnes themselves 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 received immediatly a direct commandement 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 owe as servants to their masters according to the flesh which they owe as Children to the father of spirits or betwixt the obligation wherein they stand to men who have power but over their bodies in limited cases and that for a season And that infinite obligation wherein they stand to him that is both creator and preserver and redeemer and ludge of body and soule sinne 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 indeede forbidden the Masters exacting that worke on the Sabaoth but hee hath not forbiddē the servants execution of that work if it be demanded or exacted he hath restrained the master from commanding it but hee hath not restrained the servants from obeying if it bee 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 servant that transgresseth the commandement it is not he that disobeyeth God For the question is not the passive sense whether God bee displeased with these workes but of the active 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 having relation both to the Master and to the servant to the Masters commanding and to