Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	egypt_n	hand_n	stretch_v	1,308	5	10.4202	5	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

this doctrine or the mischiefes that may ensue of it in the cōmonwealth 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 day giuen Is it to the seruants themselues or to their Masters It is giuen of seruants I confesse their worke is the matter of the commandement But I demand whether it be giuen imposed to the seruants themselues or to the Masters whose seruants they are For if the commandement be not giuen to them then doe not they transgresse the commandements if by their Masters they be set to worke but the Masters to whom the law was giuen that the seruant should not worke consequently the sinne is their Masters and not theirs so if the law be not imposed to them then it requireth no obedience of them It obligeth them not therefore is neither the transgression of it any sinne to them but only to those to whom it was giuen as a law For the better cleering of which point let me aske you a question or two of other commandements that for their forme are paralell to this and whereof you haue no preiudice God commanded the Israelites that no stranger should eate of the paschall lambe againe that no Ammonite nor Moabite should enter into the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation Good Sit tell me did the stranger sinne if hee eat of the passeouer being supposed invited Or did the Ammonites or Moabites sin if they came into the congregation being admitted Did the stranger I say and the Ammonites and the Moabites in these cases sin of whom the commandements were giuen or the Israelites to whom the commandements were giuen touching them no but it is clearely the Lords meaning that the Israelites should not admit of any gentile to the participation of the Passeouer nor receiue the 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 with whō the Lord talked familiarly as a man doth with his friend nor yet of corruption as being by the Lords mouth pronounced faithfull in all his house he therefore in the 5 of Deuter. 14. which is only the place of Scripture besides the 20 of Exodus where all the branches of that commandement are repeated after the seuerall prohibitions touching the workes of sonnes seruants cattell c. addeth this Epiphonema 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 properly exactly even as guiltines is the obligation to punishment for that transgression it appeareth manifestly that his is the guiltinesse whose the transgression is and his the transgression to whom the law was prescribed as a rule that is the Masters to whom it is not only imposed that he himselfe should doe no worke on that day as a particular man in the first clause 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