not bound to obey and thus being a freeman by your former doctrine the commandement is in force upon him and hee sinneth if he worke at his masters command this day Thirdly and as these grounds are wicked which you interlace your argument withall and therefore do not strengthen but weaken your reason so where your ground is good your consequence is naught This is indeed true which you say that the master hath over his servant a coactive and corrective power But what a miserable consequence is this Masters have a coactive power therfore there is no wisdom justice or equitie in the Almighty to give a coÌ„mandement to a servant in obeying whereof he is lyable to the stripes of a wicked master Nay God requires servants to undergoe wrongfull buffetings patiently 1 Pet. 2. 18 19. and yet hee is wise and just and equall in so doing CHAP. XI Breerwood Pag 15. IT was therefore much more agreeable both to the wisdome and justice of Almighty God to impose the commandement rather on the Masters than on the servants for thereby was prâ—vented the disobedience of servants to their masters and the punishment that might attend on that and the breach of the law of nations all which the other had occasioned and yet the masters were in no sort wronged for their servants remained in their power no lesse on the Sabaoth than the other sixe common daies only the Lord did qualifie and determine the act or execution of that power on the Sabaoth day namely to command their servants cessation from bodily labour and instead of that to exâ—rcise themselves 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 Answer First in this continuance of your former reason partly you charge our doctrine and partly you cleare your owne First you charge ours as occasioning servants disobedience to their masters and servants punishment by their masters and the breach of the Law of nations but yours as you say prevents all this Wee affirme that the giving of the commandement of the Sabbath to servants as well as to masters though to masters as those that should preserve this Law if those under them would violate it occasioneth none of these three evils First it occasioneth not any disobedience to masters for at the most it giveth but power to the servant submissely to refuse the unlawfull command of his master and not to cast off subjection to his authoritie to the first he is not bound and therefore is not disobedient when hee obeyeth not but on the contrary if he should yeeld to doe the thing that is unlawfull he is a man pleaser And to the second he yeelds himselfe in his submisse refusall and acknowledgeth his power to the full when he gives up himselfe that day to bee commanded by him in things pertaining to the worship of God in which thing alone God hath allowed the master the acting or execution of his power over his servant for that day The reason hereof your selfe suggests when you say the servant remaines in his masters power no lesse this day than any other but to other and better ends unto which ends viz. respecting the worship of God you confesse the masters power for the time is determined in respect of the execution thereof And who seeth not then that if the execution of their power bee bounded the servant is not to fulfill the boundlesse and unlawfull puttings forth of that power here it is enough to be a patient meerely and by no meanes an agent So then the servant remaineth no lesse in the masters power but to higher ends but more free to Gods service while the master may not call him off by unjust exactions And so farre is this from occasioning any disobedience that it occasioneth and properly effecteth in the servants heart a conscionable and produceth in his life an entire and singlehearted obedience to his master as to the Lord. Inasmuch as they are hereby brought to the house of God where they learn all duty to God and man though their master should bee wicked and so returne to their masters fruitful faithfull and conscionable serving them not with eye-service but with all uprightnesse to which the feare of God will bind them But the unfaithfull to God will be unfaithfull to man Oh the wisedome of God that provides for particular men and societies by this his Law better than they could or would for themselves Secondly this occasioneth not any punishment wilfully incurred if then it come it may patiently yea joyfully be borne for this is thanke-worthy with God q 1 Pet. 2. 18. 19. But we see by experience that as religious observing the duties of the Sabbath maketh one faithfull in his Calling all the weeke and as fideliâ—ie is in it selfe amiable and to the master profitable so many evill and covetous masters will willingly chuse such servants give them willingly that liberty on the Sabbath which themselves care not for nor feare sinfully to forgoe Moreover if any master should bestow blowes on his servant for going to Church when his master on the Sabbath commands him to the works of his calling this very precept requireth the Magistrate to relieve the servant against the injury of a wicked master when it giveth the Magistrate charge to see the Sabbath kept by all within his gate and the supreme Magistrate to punish the inferiour Magistrates neglects or injust impositions as wee see in Nehemiah who contended with the Nobles for prophaning the Sabbath by unjust impositions of worke upon inferiours And so you see also the justice and equity of God in providing for the servant both in soule and body Thirdly for the Law of Nations if you take it stricktly and properly it is simply and universally a positive Law as saith Iohn de Salas r Ius gentium est simpliciter universè jus positivuÌ„ Ioh. de Salas tract de leg q. 91. disp 2. sect 3. and is thus described by Zuarez it is the common Law of all Nations not by instinct of nature alone but constituted and ordained by their use Å¿ Et jus coÌ„mune omnium gentium non instinctu solius naturae sed usu earum constituâ—um Zuarez de leg l. 2. c. 19. It is that which al Nations wel-ordered do use for use requiring and humane necessities Nations of men have ordained to themselves certaine Rites or Lawes Of this sort of Lawes these examples are reckoned up by Isidore t Ius Gentium est sedium occupatio aedificatio munitio bella captivitates servitutes postliminia foedera pacis induciae legatorum non violandorum religio coÌ„nubia inter alienigenas probibita Isid Orig. l. 5. c. 6. first possessions or the taking up of our abodes secondly building thirdly munition fourthly warres fifthly captivity sixthly servitude seventhly recovery of possessions lost or alienated unlawfully eighthly covenants of peace ninthly truces tenthly the
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
so to inferiors in 1 Pet. 2. p. 737. Secondly good masters not onely license but teach their servants to keepe Gods Sabbath and worship him Commandement 4. Gen. 18. 19. in 1 Pet. 2. p. 736. Thirdly masters doe not onely wickedly in restraining their servants from the meanes of their salvation or comfort but doe foolishly also in hindering them of that meanes that should make them good servants in 1 Pet. 2. p. 725. Fourthly they may not make their servants breake Gods Sabbath to satisfie their wils in Col. 3. 23. p. 130. In these Aphorismes that faithfull servant of Iesus Christ being dead yet speaketh unto which let me adde a word or two that thou mightest on all hands be leftready to duty in this behalfe Remember if thou be a servant that in workes of holinesse mercy and necessitie the masters power is to be obeyed in subjection to his commands for in those is he under God for God and over thee Then it is thy praise to follow Isa 41. 2. him in the lawfull use of his power at his foote Lastly the well-ordered houshold of that worthily praised Centurion should be the platforme for families that intend their welbeing When hee bad his servant goe he went and come he came and doe this and he did it if thou bee a master and hadst such servants wouldest thou couldest thou serve Ier. 43. 9. thy selfe of them I am perswaded there is not the most covetous and prophane Atheist but hee hath so much sense of a deitie and so much conscience yeelding and heart giving and relenting that he would sometimes in a moode proclayme to his houshold the Lords libertie Is it so indeede my prayer shall bee for thee that of this deede thou mayest never repent and pollute Gods Name with those wretched Israelites lest it should hasten desolation on thy house and name thy repentance may bee farre better bestowed upon the remainder of other sinnes against other the Holy Lawes of God To which worke I leave thee and all others that know that Repentance towards God and Faith towards the Lord Iesus is that which summeth up Christianitie among those that follow the Truth in Love the Lord answere us all with strength in our soules that alwayes we may labor fervently one for another in prayers that wee may stand perfect and compleat in all the will of God So prayeth Yours in the Lord RICHARD BYFIELD THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOKE THE PREFACE THE Preface of this Confutation sheweth The illiteratenesse and vanitie of the Title pag. 1 2 3. The abusiue application of holy Texts to such a Treatise p. 4. The state of the Question opposed by Mr. Breerewood pag. 5. CHAP. I. The first Chapter deliuers The plaine sense of the words of the fourth Commandement which concerne the persons to whom it is giuen page 6. Seuen reasons from the Commandement it selfe to auouch that exposition page 7. 8. Two texts in the old Testament to confirme it viz. Ier. 17. 20. Exod. 34. 21. page 9. The Infirmenesse of Mr. Breerwoods Collection page 9 10. An argument taken out of Gal. 5. 3. to prooue our exposition pag. 10. A grosse absurditie and wicked against the soules of inferiours arising from the contrary doctrine of our aduersary page 10. The singularitie and Noueltie of this opinion page 10. CHAP. II. Containeth Two things that make Precepts parallel and equally obliging page 11 12. A distinction to cleare this page 12. Another argument to prooue that the fourth Commandement is giuen to seruants taken out of the Rom. 3. 19. Many arguments to prooue that the stranger-Moabite eating the Passeouer sinned though he were inuited page 13 14. Instances proouing that a commandement in forme of words giuen of and not to one may yet be sinned against by him of whom it is so giuen page 13 14. A retortion of M. Breerwoods argument page 14 15. CHAP. III. Sheweth The weakenesse of that instance of the Precept of a Prince applyed to confirme his exposition page 15. The greatnesse of the Seruants sinne that neglects attendance on Christ vpon the Sabbath vnder the similitude of a Prince gathered out of Aquinas page 16. How commandements that are priuiledges binde the priuiledged and therefore if the commandement were of seruants and not to them yet it obligeth them page 16 17. A further proofe that the fourth Commandement is giuen to Seruants also page 17 18. CHAP. IIII. Prooueth that the fourth Commandement is giuen to Children out of Lev. 23. 3. and 19 3. and therefore to Seruants page 19 20. CHAP. V. Sheweth Our Aduersaries vnsound Reasoning from the Text in Deut. 5. page 22 23. The meaning of that text page 23. Many passages in his vnfolding the place in Deut. 5. lyable to just exceptions page 24 25 26 27. CHAP. VI. Deliuereth The difference betweene the Oxes and the Seruants subjection to the fourth Commandement page 28. Two arguments drawne thence to prooue that the Commandement obligeth Seruants page 28 29. Further proofes hereof page 29 30. A Rule to know when Precepts that are alike for forme of words yet doe not oblige alike page 30. CHAP. VII Sheweth That the Seruant working on the Sabbath at his Masters commandement sinneth though the wrought Oxe sinne not p. 31 32. The Horridnesse of that position that the Seruant and the Oxe or Asse are alike subject to their Masters page 32 33. Three Rules that guide Subjects in obedience to their Superiours page 33 34. CHAP. VIII Deliuereth the examination of our Aduersaries explication of that distinction of the matter and forme of sinne page 35 36. The Infirmenesse of his Reasoning from thence page 36. CHAP. IX Sheweth further What clause of the Commandement bindeth seruants as seruants page 37 38. Another argument drawne from the Texts Exod. 20. 1 20 21. and 35. 1 2. page 38. The exposition of the Commandement by Thomas Aquinas page 38 39 40. CHAP. X. Sheweth the weakenesse of the aduersaries reason taken from the wisedome and equitie of God page 41 42. Diuers vnsound passages let fall in laying down that Reason pag. 42. In speciall the falsehood of this that the Seruants are voide of power and libertie to obey Gods Commandement on the Sabbath if their Master bid them worke page 42 43. CHAP. XI Cleareth our Doctrine from vnjust aspersions and prooueth that it occasioneth No Disobedience to Masters page 44 45. No hard vsage to the Seruant page 45 46. No breach of the Law of Nations where many things about the Law of Nations page 46 47. Chargeth our Aduersaries Doctrine to produce these three euils page 47 48. Confirmeth further our Doctrine page 48 49. CHAP. XII Sheweth How our Aduersaries Reason from Gods goodnesse is faultie for forme and matter page 50 51 52 53. That his Doctrine casteth into mischiefes and Inconueniences page 54. CHAP. XIII Sheweth the abuse of that place in Neh. 13. which is vnfolded and maketh for vs A justification of our English translation and the
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 Hieronymê° hanc exceptionem apposuit per omnia nimirum inquit ille in quibus dominus carnis Domino spiritus contraria non imperat Davenant in Col. c. 3. v. 2â— 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
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
separation from Gentiles and consecration to God therfore it was meerely ceremoniall and obliged not the Gentiles which it had done if it had beene a Law of Nature First here your consequence is weake and fallacious for every marke and signe of separation from others and consecration to God is not ceremoniall Baptisme is such a marke betweene Persian and Heathens yet no ceremony so is the Sacrament of the Lords supper Such was the Sabbath then and is at this day Neither doth every marke of separation and sanctification oblige only those that have that marke for the duty was no lesse necessary to men before the Law given than after and examples are not wanting of the Majesty of God himselfe g Gen. 2. 2. 7. 4. 8. 10 12. Exod. 16. 6. of Noah and of the Israelites before the Law by whom the dayes were gathered into weekes which sheweth that the observation of the Sabbath was not unknowne Lastly you urge us with an absurditie that will follow on this doctrine that if it bee of Nature to keepe the Sabbath it bindeth us Christians to keepe the seventh day Sabbath and so the first changers of the day to the first day of the weeke sinned grievously This argument is of no consequence for the first day of the weeke is now the Lords Sabbath as the seventh day from the Creation was then And thus neither Law of Nature broken nor sinne incurred and therefore all absurditie avoided the first day of the weeke is also the seventh though not that seventh day This accommodation also of the fourth precept to the Iewes in the determination of the day maketh not the commandement ceremoniall nor yet the change of it to our Lords day no more than the fifth Commandement is made ceremoniall by this promise respecting Israel in Canaan That thy dayes may bee long in the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee And this change in the application of the precept by the Apostle that it may bee well with thee and that thou mayest live long on earth h Ephes 6. 3. It standing firme then that the Commandement in every part thereof as it is contained in the Decalogue is morall and of the Law of Nature and the breach thereof a sinne your conclusion taketh place against you namely that the servant may not in any case worke on the Sabbath at prohibited workes because it is sinne at the commandement of any master on earth For it is better to obey God than man To the Answer whereof I leave you or others that in pride of spirit and a spirit of contradiction dare to attempt it in your behalfe All that followeth in this part of your Discourse seeing it is but by way of Recapitulation by the former Answers is found to be of no force CHAP. 17. Breerwood Pag. 28 29 30. BVt there is another objection for admit the servants worke upon the Sabaoth be the Masters sinne that imposeth it Is it not sinne to give consent and furtherance to another mans sinne But this servants doe when they execute their Masters commandements and consequently it is unlawfull so to yeeld lawfull therefore it is to resist and reject such commandement I answer first touching the point of consenting that in such a worke is to be considered the substance and the quality that is the worke it selfe and the sinfulnesse of it servants 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 than poore servants of being the ministers of sinne for that God concurreth with every man to every action whatsoever as touching the substance of the action is out of all question seeing both all power whence actions issue are derived from him and that no power can proceede into act without his present assistance and operation but yet to the crime the faultinesse the inordination the unlawfullnesse of the action wherein the nature of sinne doth for malice consist hee concurreth not But it wholly proceedeth from the infection of the concupiscence wherewith the faculties of the soule are originally defiled the actions themselves 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 every concurrence of the servants with the Master to a sinfull action which causeth the staine and imputation of sin upon the servant as when he consenteth and concurreth only to the action not to the sinne namely likes and approves it as his masters worke yet utterly dislikes it as it is his masters transgression likes of the worke for the obligation of obedience wherein touching worke he standeth to serve his Master and yet dislikes of the sinne for the great obligation wherin every one standeth toward the honour of God But yet to answer secondly to the point of resisting the servant ought not for any dislike or detestation of the annexed sinne to resist or reject his masters commandement touching the worke for in obeying hee is at most but the minister of another mans sinne and that as they say per accidens namely as it is annexed to such a worke but in resisting hee is directly the author of his owne sinne by withdrawing his obedience about bodily service from I say for the master doth not sinne onely in commanding his servant to worke but in working him and so bringing his command into execution which thing the servant knowing to be unlawfull must that he may not partake therein not onely not touch it with one of his fingers but also perswade the contrary and modestly rebuke it Again hee ought to attend on holy workes which directly will hinder that unlawfull worke and to these is he bound as Gods servant that day Thirdly by approving and this the servant doth really by his worke and by his example Your second solution is found by this that hath been set downe to be vaine and frivolous the servant must refuse to sinne in any kinde And his refusall in this kinde is not against the Law of nations as we have heretofore shewed nor against his owne covenant for his covenant though without limitations expressed doth not exempt him from the service of his Prince and Country the Prince may presse him to the warres much lesse from the service of his God when his Lord and Saviour presseth him to his warres as he doth in the day of assembling his army in holy beauty It is therefore wicked and injurious to God man nations lawes and covenants that you say that the Servant standeth bound to his master in all bodily service without any exception of the Sabbath more than other dayes Your phrase you use of the Servants resisting is your owne we teach the servant may refuse and must all such workes which God hath forbidden to be done that day but not resist no hee must acknowledge