gate he is should require him to worke is he excused because hee is within his gate as you say the servant is Againe Å¿ Adigerâ— quisque paterfamilias potest debet suos do nesticos aâ— externum cultum cur non etiam magistratus suos subditos Non enim aâ—t memento ut sanctifices monebis autem silâ—â—m sed memento ut sanctifices ut alii tui sanctificent Zanch. in 4. praeceptum the Governour is commanded to compell those within his gate to keepe the rest and to punish refractory Will God authorise any to punish those that doe not offend and those doe not offend you say to whom the Law is not given those do not offend that can no more transgresse a command than the Oxe or Asse Furthermore Zanchy saith expresly that though upon the Sabbath the heathen which did not agree with the Iewes in the true religion did not come to their assemblies to be partakers of the sacrifices and to the performance of other parts of Gods service which pertained to the sanctification of the Sabbath yet they were commanded to rest upon that day aswell as the homeborne Iewes t Iubebantur feriari eo die quemadmodum Iudaei indigenae and he giveth one reason of this command which concerneth the strangers themselves namely that they might after some sort bee trained up in the knowledge of the Law of God u Isti jubebantur non simplicitèr quiescere sed quiescere ut ipsi suo modo Sabbatum sanctificare possent Id. ibid. Fourthly therefore you must know that the same forme of words make not the like bond and obligation in a precept nor the precept the same For besides all that I have said before in chap. 2. 3. The end not only differenceth the precept and proveth it a precept or a priviledge as here the end of the Oxes rest as respecting the Oxe is meerely rest but of the servants chiefely holinesse which labour servile wholly thwarteth but also the end giveth the precept its modification for the end of the prohibition of the servants labor being the sanctification of the day the servant is hereby bound to rest and apply himselfe to holinesse and the master not only not to worke him or to admonish him to sanctifie the day but to compell him to the outward worship CHAP. VII Breerwood Pag. 11. BVt as the labour of the beast is the sinne and transgresse of the Master to whom the commandement of the beasts resting from labour was given so is the labour of the servant also which by the masters commandment he executed on that day as being touching bodily service incident to mankind in like degree of subjection the masters sinne and not the servants Answer First heere you deliver your Doctrine and your reason Your Doctrine is this The labour of the servant on the Sabbath done at his masters command is no more the servants sinne than the labor of the Oxe is the Oxes sinne This beastly prophane opinion deserves rather stripes than arguments yet in a word or two The labour of the Oxe doth not violate the commandement of the Sabbath but you acknowledge the worke of the servant doth when in the words of the next page pag. 12. you say thus of the servants worke this day the act indeed wherewith the commandement of the Sabbath is violated is the servants The Law of nature it selfe requireth in general of all men the sanctification of times no lesse than of places persons and things unto Gods honor for which cause God exacts some parts of times by way of perpetuall homage never to bee dispensed withall nor remitted Of this kind among the Iewes was the Sabbath day the chiefe generall festivall Now Nature hath taught the Heathen and God the Iewes and Christ us saith worthy x Hooker Eccles pol. l. 5. sect 70. Hooker First that festivall solemnities are a part of the publike exercise of Religion secondly that praise liberality and rest are as naturall elements whereof solemnities consist The labor of the servant though injoyned by his master on this day violates the rest and so the sanctification of that time indispensable irremissable to any man who oweth it by way of perpetuall Homage unto God by the obligation of the Law of Nature For ordinary labour with festivall services to God can neither easily concurre because painfulnesse and joy are opposite nor decently because while the mind hath just occasion to make her abode in the house of gladnesse the weed of ordinary toyle and travell becommeth her not Thus learned y Id. ibid. Hooker againe Now can the masters command dissolve the eternall Law and the servant filching holy time be found lesse sinfull than one prophane and sacrilegious But what kin betweene Oxen Asses and the everlasting Covenant and Holy times Let them to their stalles and servants as Christs freemen to the assemblies in the beauty of holinesse as they will answer it to the God of Nature the eternall Lawgiver When the servant hath no more soule than the oxe nor holinesse and attendance on Gods worship required more of him than of the oxe nor the Sabbath made for man but for the oxe then shall the servants and oxes labour that day be alike faultlesse in either of them z Servants being created redâ—emed and sanctified are as highly indebted to the worship of God as their masters Greenham of the Sabbath pag. 163. This of your Doctrine which brings to my mind that of Hagur a Prov. 30 2 3. which I wish might bee the confession of every one that hath been infected with this dotage Surely I am more bruitish than any man and have not the understanding of a man I neither learned wisedome nor have the knowledge of the Holy Secondly your reason is this That the servant as touching bodily service incident to mankind is in like degree of subjection to his master as is the oxe and asse This is abhorring to Christian to naturall eares no slave is so the masters It fights with that Rule Whatsoever yee would that men should doe unto you even so doe yee to them b Matth. 7. 12. Mat. 7. 12. A perfect voluntary servitude betweene Christian and Christian can scarce be lawfull to be exercised on the masters part saith Amesius c Ames de consci l. 5. cap. 23. parag 2. Yet this placeth not man in the condition of a beast for subjection It fights with that humanitie and lenitie which masters owe to their servants with whom they may not deale imperiously as with their cattell Ephes 6. 9. It fights with that restraint given to servants to obey their masters in the Lord which cannot bee applied to beasts It fights with that liberty the servant hath in things unmeet and inexpedient though lawfull humbly to use all meanes to prevent and avoide the commandement of that nature It fights with that liberty the servant hath humbly to contend with
occasion of all this stirre in this mans spirit which in the beginning of the Treatise he layeth downe viz. the wound in the conscience of one Iohn Breerwood by Master Nic. Byfield First it is evident those workes he stucke at were never in question Secondly it is manifest by the Letter of Master Breerwoods written to the abovesaid Master Iohn Ratcliffe that the servant confessed that he received the first touch at Master Bruens of Stapleford but his conference after with Master Byfield was it that resolved him And yet it is cleare that there was never any case propounded to him at Chester about servants worke on the Sabbath at Master Ratcliffes and he never to that time delivered his opinion touching it unto any Thirdly it is no lesse cleare that the occasion was foolish and weak as shall be manifest by giving to all the world a true information how the case then stood with this Iohn Breerwood which I give you in the next Chapter for a conclusion to this first part of the booke Happy had it been for him if Answer For the occasion three things will lively represent it to the world a briefe relation concerning the condition of Iohn Breerwood at that time secondly the comparing of some passages in Master Breerwoods relation with the former thirdly the beginning of Master Byfields answer to this Treatise containing a short and satisfactory answer to this particular First this was the true state of things concerning Iohn Breerwood at the time while these things fellout Iohn Breerwood was servant and Apprentice to one Master Thomas Shipton Grocer in Fridaystreet in the Parish of Saint Iohn the Evangelist He was imployed by his Master on businesse to Chester and going downe hee fell in love with a Maide that accompanied him downe at the same time Whereupon when hee returned as was manifest by the consequents hee cast in his mind which way to wind himselfe out of his Masters service For the attaining of his disordered desire when yet hee had not spent halfe the time of his Apprentiship in his Masters service hee made therefore many scruples some about the Sabbath pretending his conscience had been much wrought upon by Master Nicolas Byfield in that his foresaid journey some about his calling in the weeke dayes About the Sabbath when his Master bade him fetch a pint of wine or see his horse have provender or call the invited Guest to dinner he would refuse to doe it which thing his Master supposing it had been indeed upon some trouble of conscience with joy related to the Minister of the parish M. Walker and therupon sought meanes to bind and retaine him the faster in his service for his Master was a conscionable and religious man and carefull of the Sabbath and hoped that here would begin the discovery of some good wrought in him who before was many wayes untoward But this Iohn Breerwood saw that this would take no place he casts other scruples about the workes of his Calling to get off that way by his pretexts of the evils he saw attended Trades in the City and this turned not off his Master from his desires to retaine him but rather increased them the more Afterwards perceiving that Religion pretended wrought against his intended plot and not for it hee fell to impudent and vile stubbornnesse On a time his Master for some stubbornnesse of his gave him a boxe on the eare then he found out this project to lay his Dagger under his pillow that when the maides should find it there and relate it to their Master he might conceive he had some intent to play some vile part and being a timorous man might bee moved to turne him out of his service After this his Master upon his earnest desire sent him downe againe to Chester to gather up moneys who there gathered up to the summe of an hundred pounds or thereabout his Master fearing to lose it gave way to his motion to leave his service and set up for himselfe in Chester that so he might get his money of him This Iohn Breerwood thus released married the former woman and since putting her to shift for her selfe hath been to and fro beyond Sea and hath played many prankes This Relation was taken from Master Walkers mouth March 30. 1631. as a briefe of those things that might bee more largely set downe the Christian Reader for his further satisfaction if hee desire it may enquire of him who was very well acquainted with all those passages Now consider with me some passages in Master Breerwoods Relation First he saith the true cause of his distemper was a Case of Conscience about workes on the Sabbath yet hee saw that at the first discovery of his strange alteration were discovered obstinate resolutions by faire or foule meanes to forsake his service Hee is little skill'd in the plight of a wounded conscience that can thinke such a conscience and such obstinatenesse are compatible to the same man at the same time Secondly hee talketh of his Masters great offence yet this was no other but that as one joyed to see hee made some shew of conscience in that thing he sought all meanes to tie him the faster to him and his service Thirdly hee talketh also of his Kinsmans affliction What From such a man as was so milde as his Master was Who can beleeve that this matter about his Kinsman was any more than an occasion no cause in truth of Master Breerwoods attempts some thing there was besides this as rightly he acknowledgeth And to put it out of doubt heare M. Byfield speake after long silence under these injuries beginning his Treatise thus LO Sir I am become at length a Writer Your strange bitternes and great thoughts of heart have wrung from me that resolution which once I thought had not been in the power of man to urge me to The Lord make it prosperous if it be his wil or els give me more patience hereafter to forbeare imployment where I can goe about it with so little hope of successe I write not while I write Partly because the discharge of my calling commands me to labor other waies and partly because my judgement is not every way resolved of the expediency of an answer in this kind One thing I am sure of that I can be contented to seale the Doctrine of the Sabbath as it is now taught in the Church of England with my blood and conceive there is as apparent reason for it as for any other point of Religion Thus much I easily grant upon the reading of your writings that if your places of invention had been as sound as your forme of elocution is faire and the matter had been answerable to the stile you shuld easily have had my voice for the Chaire amongst the truly learned but when I consider of your assertions concerning the Sabbath unmasking them and without the varnish cast upon them I cannot but see cause to lament that such
15. God doth prescribe which hath not the reason and nature of a benefit simply but of a duty and office that is from the Empire of God And afterwards explaining himselfe he addeth I say simply a benefit for God requires no duty of his creature which is not in the thing it selfe a benefit but that is simply a benefit in which no nature of a duty towards God doth shew it selfe Now follow this Rule and who sees not that this precept Thy servant shall doe no worke on the Sabbath hath in it chiefly the nature of office and duty the servant oweth to God as well as the master even the observation of the Sabbath to God though in a second place here is a matter of fatherly indulgence God graciously tendring the servants as he doth also the very bruite beast for whose ease he mercifully provides that day Now Master Publisher if you have any mind to put questions you shall have leave if you please to aske as many more CHAP. 4. Breerwood Pag. 7. NOw that that clause of the Commandement touching servants was not given to the sevants themselves 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 than the parent and is not by the same reason the clause that next followeth neither shall thy man servant nor thy maid-servant doe any worke on the Sabaoth day directed to the Masters of such servants Seeing that phrase of speech thy man-servant thy maidservant cannot rightly bee used to any other It is therefore as cleare as the Sunne even to meane understandings if they will give but meane attendance to the tenour of Gods commandements rather than the fond interpretations and depravations of men that that clause of the commandement touching servants cessation from working on the Sabaoth is not given to servants themselves but to their masters concerning them Answer First this proofe is sufficiently overthrowne by all the former arguments yet I adde This precept is directed to the parents restraining the use of their power to interrupt and injoyning the use of their power to preserve the sanctification of the day and to the sonne and daughter also not to worke at the houshold worke for saith God g Levit. 23. 3. The seventh day is the Sabbath of rest and holy convocation yee shall doe no worke therein it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings Who are these charged in the word yee Who but yee that stand bound to come to the holy convocations yee that constitute families therefore yee children as well as yee parents Secondly and to free all that subscribe to this truth from feare of so much as any private interpretation and to cast it bee commanded nor intreated licence would serve their turne but to the masters whose desire of gaine by the servants labour might stand betwixt the Sabaoth and the servants rest and to make an end with the Text with the last words of it what is it that the Lord for these reasons commanded was it barely to keepe and observe 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 Deut. 5. 15. Now to make it to bee so importeth not onely to observe it himselfe but to cause others also to observe it which is evidently the property of masters and governours wherefore seeing both the commandement touching servants 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 servants themselves I take it out of all question as cleare as the Sunshine at midday that if servants by their masters command doe any worke on the Sabaoth the sinne is not theirs who as touching their bodily labour are meerely subject to their Masters power but it is their masters sinne For their sinne it is that transgresse the law they transgresse the law who are obliged by it they are obliged by it to whom it was given and imposed and given it was as I have plentifully proved onely to Masters Answer First your first way of confirming your exposition was by instance then you goe on to proofes from texts whereof the first taken out of the commandement was taken off in the former Chapter this is your second proofe built on the text in Deu. 5. And here because you flaunt it out in many words and in many of them glance at things as if they made to your purpose besides the maine of your argument I thus reply first to your reason drawne from the text secondly to some chiefe passages in the venting of it The substance of the reasoning is this in briefe Moses applyeth the precept of servants rest to the masters that were slaves in Egypt but now ransomed and set in the estate of freemen that they should allow their servants rest and make the Sabbath a resting day therefore the commandement thou shalt not doe any worke is given onely to the masters It is applyed to the masters therefore given to them were a right consequence but therefore to them onely is fallacious for more is in the consequent than was in the Antecedent and if you put the word only into the Antecedent then both the propositions are false For in Levit. 19. 3. as above was specified Moses applyeth it to children And the argument is yet unsolid for it stands thus Moses applieth it in his expositions onely to masters therefore it was given onely to masters for applications are according to severall occasions but not alwaies extended to the utmost breadth of the precept and yet in all this Moses fidelitie no way impeached inasmuch as he faithfully applieth where it most needeth as occasion serveth keeping the bounds of truth These consequents from this place as you expound it may be gathered therefore that reason binds not servants or this therefore the master sinnes most ungratefully that will disturbe his servants rest or this therefore it is given chiefly to the masters as those that must not onely keepe but make a Sabbath all which wee yeeld but the mind that once is big of a new fancy maketh all that it feedeth upon nourish that fancy Secondly the truth is the Lord by Moses pleades in those words the reason of the right that hee hath to command thy servant rest who is his freeman by vertue of that redemption the servant as well as the master called into the liberty of his holy people as appeareth in the Preface to the Decalogue Exod. 20. and in Exod.
19. 4 5 6. bond and free indifferently entertained into the priviledge and honour of the Covenant and into the band of it and the reason the master hath both to obey and yeeld up his servant for that day to Gods commanding and appointing and also to use his authoritie for God in seeing that his servant keepe the Sabbath but in other respects both master and servant to rejoyce alike in the great worke of their redemption Thirdly but let us examine more narrowly some of the speciall passages Moses addeth in vers 14. that thy manservant and maid-servant may rest as well as thou it is to this Thou therefore to whom this charge is directed c. Which thou that in those words thou and thy sonne That makes nothing to the exemption of the servant as thy servant from the obligation of the first thou which is this thou shalt doe no manner of worke for thy servant is one contained under this thou as well as thou art that art the master Or if it bee meant of this first thou that were absonant from the very context It being meant of the latter thou we must ask what you meane when you say it is to this thou to whom this charge is directed Mean you by charge the charge to make the servants rest That you say afterwards were needlesse they need but licence and neither command nor intreat Or meane you the charge to give them leave to rest nay that is against your owne reading the master is to make a day of rest and your owne interpretation to make it to be so importeth not onely to observe it himselfe but to cause others also to observe it Or by charge meane you the command Thy servant shall doe manner of worke and this is directed to this thou namely the master of the servant Well bee it so And what will follow thence Why surely this Thou master must know that God commands thy servant to rest and thee to make him keepe the Sabbath day but not this Thou art commanded to rest but thy servant is not commanded to rest but may worke if thou biddest him the sinne and perill is thine only What new Divinitie and Logick is this We see then here is some motion in but no promotion of your cause Nay because the command is given that the servant may rest as well as the master and that all might be free to attend on Gods service that day alike therefore it cannot be that the servant should remaine bound to the commands of the master for servile worke on that day For as master Calvin well observes i Calvin in quartum praeceptum Tenendum est propriè spectatum fuisse unum Dei cultum Scimus enim totum Abrahae genus sic fuisse Deo sacrum ut serviessent quaedam accessio unde circumcisio illis communis fuit We must hold this that the alone worship of God was properly looked unto but wee know saith hee the whole off-spring of Abraham was so sacred to God that this that they were servants was a certaine accession whence also circumcision was common to them all If the commandement of rest had been directly and immediately given to servants Doth your owne conscience know and force out this acknowledgement that it is given to them though not directly and immediately Would not servants overset wearied with six daies toile be of themselves glad to rest on the seventh These interrogations are brought in to set on the proofe that the commandement of rest was not given at all to servants but how ill they conclude may bee seene by these certaine truths That the servant if not religious which God lookes not to find but by his word to make us such had rather oft times worke for his master than bee imployed in the duties of sanctification for a part much more for all the day for they are more irkesome to flesh and blood than handy worke True that question might take more place if it were rest alone that were aymed at and not rest for an higher end That the master if covetous and prophane will not stand upon pleasing or displeasing God in requiring such unlawfull worke but respect his gaine more than all and to the utmost call for the servants worke that day when the servant in the Court of God and man can have no redresse yea out of irreligious petulancy he will most exact worke then Againe that the toyled servant will be oft ready to worke for himselfe as in mending his clothes or the like now the master is charged to remember the condition of his slavery that hee may not dare to overset his sâ—rvant with worke in the sixe dayes but every way make a Sabbath day Hath it any other but to declare c. Yes it declares Gods just title over their servants to command them that day and their unequall and wicked carriage if they should offer to plead their covenant to evert Gods covenant Which reason could not bee intended nor directed to them that still remained in servitude No not at all intended nor could be This redemption prooved them Gods servants and not theirs nor any mans to use them as slaves to use them as servants on the Sabbaths as we read in Levit 25. vers 39 41 42. Thou shalt not compell him to serve as a bond-servant he shall returne in the yeere of Iubile for they are my servants which I brought out of the Land of Egypt And in vers 53. 55. The stranger meaning to whom the poore Iew was sold shall not rule with rigour over him he shall goe out in the yeere of Iubile for unto me the children of Israel are servants they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the Land of Egypt I am the Lord your God Here the servant saw that God put no difference betweene bond and free and that the Sabbath made master and servant equall in respect of freedome for attendance on God k Cessatiâ—nem indixit ut fulgeret ubique Sabbathi Sanctitas at que ita ad ejus observantiam terrae conspectu magis animarentur filii Israël Calvin com in 4. praeceptum in Lev. c. 25. Those Sabbaths of yeeres had all respect to engrave on them the respect of this Sabbath Heere no slavery but liberty for Gods service which is perfect freedome may passe upon the redeemed and therefore their servitude did not make the Redemption void to them But such an Expositor as you are would leave them slaves because servants and slaves without intermission even on the Lords Sabbath to drudgerie and not the Lords servants when yet they were the Redeemed of the Lord equally as their masters were Thus you derogate from the breadth of the coÌ„mandement and the reasons and clip the wings of Scripture while you take that precept to belong onely to masters and the master enjoyed no further than to make a rest for his servant when the text saith Hee shall make a
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
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
was manifestly intended to bring servants release and remission of their weekely toile should by the decree of the law it selfe above all other daies breede their greatest perplexities forasmuch as above all other daies if their Masters be not men that feare God enforced they are there is no avoidance to venter either on sinne or stripes for either God must be disobeyed and sinne cleaveth to their soules or their Masters and stripes light upon their bodies either they must obey God and be plagued by men or obey men and be condemned by God you will say it is better to obey God than men and worse to disobey him that can cast both body and soule into hell than him that can only for a time afflict the body true who doubts it But that is not the point I stand upon the point is how it agreeth with the tender goodnesse and compassion of Almighty God towards poore servants whose condition is yet honest and lawfull to plunge them into such perplexities as namely to impose on them a commandement which they can neither keepe nor breake without a mischiefe and inconvenience neither keepe as the servants of men nor breake as they are the servants of God neither keepe without sharpe punishment nor breake without heavy sinne all which intanglement of servants and calumniation against both the justice and mercy of God is clearly avoided if the commandement be given as the tenour of it doth simply import to the Masters and not to the servants which I have sufficiently proved both by the evidence of holy scripture so to have beene and by evidence and inforcement of reason that it should be so Answer First here I have to say against both the manner and the maine of your arguing For the manner first you play the Sophister egregiously the question is whether it be given onely to masters and not to servants And you take the rise of your reasoning from hence that the commandement according to our opinion is given to servants only and not to masters and therefore you talke that you might put a glosse upon your reasoning and make the contrary appeare the more foule of the commandement of the servants cessation not touching the master The commandement given to themselves not to their masters This is meere cavilling for who ever thought or dreamt save your selfe much lesse held that the commandement was not given to their masters though it were given to the servants also Againe you seeme to promise the servant liberty but indeed make him the bond-slave to his masters unlawfull commands and while you would free him from blowes of an injurious master you free him if it may bee called freedome from the service of God which is perfect freedome Secondly for the maine of your reason it is thus to give the commandement to servants also is against the goodnesse of God for it casts the servant upon stripes or sinne I answer Doth the commandement cast any upon sinne If it any way provoke or revive sinne it is by accident because a spirituall just and good Law meets with a carnall heart sold under sinne a Rom. 7. 11 12. Sinne taketh occasion by the commandement the commandement doth not cause sinne Had you had Pauls spirit you would have justified the Law and laid load upon the flesh and corrupt nature as out of measure sinfull and have advised all youth to cleanse their wayes by taking heed thereto according to Gods word b Psal 119. 9. and not goe about to fill greene heads with crotchets Yea but if they sinne not but obey stripes attend them and this is against the mercy of God Indeed Is this your stumbling blocke It is then against his goodnesse that Hagar c Gen. 16. 6 9. should returne to her Mistris and submit her selfe It is against his pitty that the Apostle from Gods spirit should require servants to suffer buffetings that come undeserved 1 Pet. 2. 19. It is against goodnesse to be happy for blessed are yee saith Christ when ye suffer despightfull usage for righteousnesse sake d Mat. 5. 11 12. It is against goodnesse that any man should be or doe good inasmuch as some wicked men will persecute a man for that good Why should the pitifull God require that which will cast us on the wheele greediron racke fire and faggot and what not that is of torment and torture Oh divelish earthly and sensuall reasoning This is farre from our Saviours Doctrine and Spirit the King of Sion meeke and having salvation who bids us e Luk. 14. 26 27 take up our crosse daily and hate father and mother and our owne lives as ever we meane to be worthy of him and find life to life eternall Such sufferings are to Gods glory and to our glory Our Saviour premeditating of his sufferings said Father glorifie thy Name that is saith Chrysostome f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in Ioh. 12. 28. Leade me now to the Crosse the Crosse he calleth glory saith Ammonius g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ammonius Glorifie thy sonne that is doe not forbid him now hastening to death assent to thy sonne herein for the profit of all saith Cyrill h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril in Ioh. We have an excellent Chapter in Lactantius his Institutions answering this seâ—suall argument upon another occasion for the povertie and afflictions and unjust persecutions of the Church and the prosperity of Idolaters and Heathen might seeme to proove the worship of God to bee vaine and the Rites of gods or idols to be true because their worshippers enjoyed brought Therefore that Starre in the firmament of your reasoning whose condition is yet honest and lawfull shooteth and falleth Yea but you say the point you stand on is not how much better it is to obey God than man but how the command requiring obedience in a thing that will cast us into the hands of wicked men can stand with the goodnesse of God This is the point that all this while I have handled reade and see how Fourthly and for a recompence when you talke so freely of mischiefes and inconveniences free your Doctrine of them if you can For if the servant must obey his masters unlawfull commands of worke on that day I say hee cannot doe it but he falleth into mischiefe for he is sold from Gods service and the Covenant of God p Esay 56. 6. Every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it taketh hold of Gods Covenant if a master be wicked and into inconvenience for he hath no breathing time he cannot leave it undone but hee falleth into stripes and sinne at once without any support from God or man Therefore your Conclusion that all is avoided by this your dreame is most untrue neither Scripture nor reason favoureth your opinion and in this you suffer the just reproofe of q 2 Pet. 2. 12. Iude 8. Peter and Iude you are one of the filthy dreamers Lactantius saith
not the seventh through iniquity and vanity that can no more disproove the festivity of the seventh to bee from the beginning and reach to all than the failings in many specialties of the first and second and third and other commandements can disproove their ingraving on the heart of man as Lawes of Nature and on the other side it prooveth as sufficiently that this commandement is a Law of Nature so farre as it is expressed in the Decalogue as the reliques of the other precepts in the hearts of Gentiles proove them to be Lawes of Nature and therefore his exception in speciall against that authority out of Hesiod if it should bee understood of every seventh day taking the calculation from the first day of the month doth no way supplant our intended purpose Well hath a learned Bishop t Patterne of Catech. Doctr. pag. 124. of our Church observed that sufficient is found in the heart of the Gentiles to their condemnation for breaking the Law of the fourth commandement they knew that numerus septenarius est Deo gratissimus and it was numerus quietis and thence they might have gathered that God would have his rest that day and so the seventh day after birth they kept exequiae and the seventh day after death the Funerall Note also that Gomarus passeth over those sayings brought by Clemens and Eusebius out of Homer and Callimachus untouched because they are not found in their writings now extant which proveth the weakenesse of this cause That quotation out of Philo Iudaeus he thinketh he hath taken off by that place of the same Author in his booke of the Decalogue whereby hee saith it is evident that Philo spake not properly but only by similitude of the number of seven because hee thus expounds himselfe in that place The fourth commandement saith he commands the seventh day commanding it to be spent holily and godly This certaine cities celebrate every month as a Festivall beginning their reckoning from the New Moone but to the Iewes every seventh day is holy I answer First it is a meere presumption of his to say that here Philo expounds his meaning in the other place for this is in his booke of the decalogue that in another booke viz. The second of the life of Moses nor doth he make the least intimation of reference thither Then this quotation that he maketh the exposition of his meaning in the former place cannot be for here he speaketh only of some few cities there in generall termes who honoureth not that holy day Moreover in another place u Philo de mundi opisicio hee calleth that very seventh day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a generall Festivall to be observed of all people for ever Lastly if hee had but perused Philo or not perverted him willfully hee might have seene his plaine meaning whose words both for this purpose and for the rest of servants about which our dispute is I set downe not mangled but entire and they are these It admonisheth saith hee meaning the Divine Law it admonisheth all of dutie Barbarians Graecians inhabitants of maine continents aswell as of Ilands the Westerlings the Easterlings the Europeans and the Asians the whole habitable World even to the uttermost coasts For who doth not honor that holy day returning every weeke bringing remission of labour and holy vacations to the master of the familie with his houshold not onely to freemen but also to servants yea moreover to the beasts vnder the yoke and so forth Againe hee helpeth us to another authoritie out of losephus in his second booke against Appain who saith Neither is there any city of the Grecians or Barbarians nor any Nation to whom the custome of the seventh day in which wee rest hath not come A pregnant proofe But Gomarus saith there are words foregoing which doe end the controversie namely these Moreover the people doe now much emulate our piety Which words saith he do only shew that the observation of the Sabbath among the Gentiles was only an imitation of the Iewes by Proselites and perchance many others What were all the Gentiles East and West become Proselytes or would all of them admit a meere ceremony Some Nations besides Proselytes admitted Circumcision but did all the cities of Greeks and Barbarians admit thereof And if they imitated their piety could it bee thought that they imitated it as theirs and not rather as that which their naturall light glimmeringly guided them unto especially seeing the Iewes were naturally hated of all people For his quotation out of Theodoret upon the 20. chap. of Ezekiel to testifie to his tenet who saith That in the observation of the Sabbath the Iewes seemed to obtaine a certaine proper commonwealth for no other Nation did observe this rest and neither did Circumcision so distinguish them from others as did the Sabbath I answer This cannot bee understood of any kind of observation of the Sabbath for then Theodoret must speake directly against all received testimonies of antiquity which may not bee thought but of the true observing thereof in the solemne rituall worship of God which being all publike and solemnely used on that day as the sanctification thereof did asmuch more lively distinguish the Iewes Gods people from the Heathen Idolaters than did circumcision as the whole Law doth more than any one part thereof Thus wee have made good the sufficiency of the quotations excepted against wee leave them therefore with the rest fore-alleaged to be cavilled at by the next that dares to attempt it The infirmenesse of the consequence saith Gomarus is this that if the observation of the Sabbath had prevailed among the Gontiles yet from thence no such antiquity of the Sabbath may bee evinced but only thence appeareth the imitation of the Iewes by the Gentiles as by Proselytes and others perhaps I answer the consequent is firme for the former Heathen Authors have no reference to the Iewes and the Gentiles derided the Iewish Sabbathes Lament 1. 7. But suppose it came up among the Gentiles by imitation of the Iewes yet this spreading of it farre and wide prooveth the goodnes of the consequence that it is of the moral Law For hence it sufficiently appeares that the institution of a set seventh day in the weeke is immutable and not ceremoniall and temporall not proper to the Iewes onely but common to all seeing nature apprehends it meet and necessary that we often exercise the worship of God and cannot but acknowledge as we see in the inclination of the whole universe of men that this weekely determination of a day is most convenient and altogether absolute Hitherto of the answer to your position determining what is ceremoniall in the fourth commandement Your proofe for the ceremony of it in those respects is first taken from Texts of Scripture in Exod. 31. 13. and Ezek. 20. 12 20. Hence you reason thus That forme of keeping Sabbath was given to the Iewes as a speciall marke of their
yeeld not the speciality to bee morall you turne out one commandement of the ten from being morall for all your generality for to say that this is the morality of the commandment no more that some time shuld be sequestred to divine worship maketh this commandment no more morall then the building of the Tabernacle or Temple is morall for therein this perpetuall will of God was shewed that some place must bee assigned for Church assemblies and publike worship By this also it will follow that the Papists that in their Catechismes render the fourth commandement thus keepe holy the festivall dayes doe render the full sâ—nse of it Which being yeelded this also will follow that you may aswell put it downe thus frequent the assemblies Moreover all the feast daies of the Iewes conteined this generall equity Lastly then God should in this command nothing to particular men because it is not in their power to institute these daies and so nothing shal be commanded to them further than what publike persons shall injoyne be it but one day in the yeere and for them neither is there any thing commanded in speciall and they sinne not if they appoint but one day in a Moone or if they appoint but one in a quarter then also the Feasts of Christs Nativity of Easter of Whitsontide c. are of equall authority with the Lords day which thing what eares can heare with patience These also are constitutions of the ancient primitive Church CHAP. XXV Breerwood Pag. 39 40 41. BVt what of that What if the consecration of the Sabaoth was by the Church translated to the first day of the weeke Was therefore the commandement of God translated also That that day ought to be observed under the same obligation with the Sabaoth For if the commandement of God were not translated by the Church together with the celebration from the seventh day to the first day then is working on the first no violation of Gods commandement Was the commandement of God then translated from the Sabaoth to the Lords day by the decree of the Church No the Church did it not let mee see the act The Church could not doe it let me see the authority the Church could not translate the commandement to the first day which God himselfe had namely limited to the seventh For could the Church make that Gods commandement which was not his commandement Gods commandment was to rest on the seventh day and worke on the first therefore to rest on the first and worke on the seventh was not his commandement For doth the same commandement of God enioyne both labour and rest on the same day is there fast and lose in the same commandement â—â—th God Thou shalt work on the first day saith that and worke â—â— the seventh saith this Can the Church make these the same commandement But say the Church hath this incredible and uncoâ—ceivable power Say it may forbid to worke on the first day by the vertue of the very same precept That doth neither expresly command or license to worke on that day Say that the Church of God may translate the commandement of God from one day to another at their pleasure did they it therefore I spake before of their authority whether they might doe it I enquire now of the act whether they did it did the Church I say ever constitute that the same obligation of Gods commandement which lay on the Iewes for keeping of the Sabaoth day should be translated and laid upon the Christians for keeping of the Lords day Did the Church this no no they did it not all the wit and learning in the World will not prove it Answer First this reasoning is on false grounds supposed as hath beene proved and therefore fals to the ground Secondly yet take their owne grounds If the Church have powre to translate the day and consecrate it a Sabbath they may have power and had so to translate the Commandement for the Commandement is but the consecration of the Sabbath and determination thereof to a certaine day And if they doe not translate the Commandement yet the Commandement stands in force for that day to which by just power they have translated the Sabbath For the Commandement is in force as a law of nature you confesse for the celebration of a Sabbath or else you deny a moralitie in any part of that Commandement but if that your moralitie stand as without doubt it doth then is working on that day equally a violation of the Commandement of God as working on the seventh from the creation for then it was sinfull because that day was then Sabbath and now it is so because this is now Sabbath Thirdly and for those quaeres let me see the Act Let me see the Authoritie as they may bee retorted to your conceite of their translating the seventh day and consecrating it a Sabbath so in the true sense of consecrating that day you have seen before the Act and Authority and may now see if you winke not that the Commandement is not translated but remaines the same it was namely to keepe holy the Sabbath day Neither is there a making of that Gods Commandement which was not his nor yet doth the commandment containe any impossibilities and contradictions Distingue tempora tolle dubia Distinguish the times and the doubts vanish the Commandement enjoyneth rest and holinesse Sabbath-like on the Lords Sabbath then that seventh day now this seventh day and of both is it true the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God Then the seventh day was it and so enjoyned thereon Now the first day of the weeke and so enjoyned thereon Hence this reasoning is easily answered First God commanded to worke on the first and rest on the seventh therefore to rest on the first and work on the seventh was not his Commandement it was not then it is now moreover sixe dayes thou shalt worke doth not point out which sixe daies and the seventh day will containe both ours and theirs and their seventh they knew then by the worke of Creation as our seventh we know by the worke of Redemption For the authoritie and Act of the Church we need it not the Scripture as before hath saved the labour But that the act of this power was put forth the Church hath acknowledged and your selfe doe while you yeeld the first day consecrated Sabbath CHAP. XXVI Breerwood Pag. 41 42 43. Object BVt you may object if the old Sabaoth vanished and the commandement of God was limited and fixed to that day only then is one of Gods commandements perished Sol. I answere that the generality of that commandement to keepe a Sabaoth wherein God might be honoured was morall But the speciality of it namely to keepe 1 one day of seven 2 the seventh 3 one whole day 4 with precise vacancy from all worke were meerely ceremoniall the specialitie then of the commandements are vanished But for the generality of it it
must he therefore succeede him in equality of power The Lords day therefore succeedeth the Sabaoth in the point of sanctification for celebration of the assemblies for the Church hath precisely commanded that but not in the point of exact and extreme vacation from every kind of worke for that the Church hath not commanded and so although the Lords day may well be tearmed the heire of the Sabaoth yet is it not ex asse haeres as the civill Lawyers speake It inheriteth not the whole right of the Sabaoth for that right and prerogative of the Sabaoth was not given to the Sabaoth and its heires it was no fee simple and if I may speake in the Lawyers stile it was onely 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 Answer First what was acknowledged by the Church as injoyned by the point of vacancie from all labour without the least rellish of Iewish ceremonies wee shall see in the next Chapter Here onely wee examine your supposed confutation of a reason to prove it which reason is this The Lords day is succeeded in the place of the Sabbath or as some say as Heire of the Sabbath therefore to bee kept Sabbath-like You confute it thus If it succeeds it in place must it succeede in equall precisenesse of observation No It succeeded in point of Sanctification not of exact vacation I reply your distinction is not distinct for if in Sanctification then in exact vacation namely vacation Sabbaticall for if in the end in the meanes necessary to that end and for that end ordained which is exact vacation so farre as it may further Sanctification Now for your playing on the termes about an Heire it is frivolous Secondly for your instance in the Pope succeeding Peter arguing from place to power it little conduceth to this matter for the Pope succeedeth not in place Apostolicall if he did I should not much doubt of his power Apostolicall Had there beene a certaine Commandement of God to shew that God in his eternall Law commanded his people to obey the Apostolicall place But by place you mean roome not Officiall function and then what kinne betweene your instance and the matter in hand CHAP. XXIX Breerwood Pag. 45 46 47. ANy other reason besides this or else authority which I might in your behalfe object to my selfe I know none worthy mentioning for the commandement of God as I have 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 canons of the ancient councels nor any other monuments or registers of antiquity afford you as I am certainely 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 prerogative of that day as that it was a holy day in * Hist Eccles lib. 4. cap. 22. Eusebius a day of Christian emblies in * Apolog. 2. Iustin Martyr and a day of rejoycing in * Apolog. c. 16 Tertullian a festivall day in * Epi. ad mag Ignatius and some more of the like but doth any of all these import or imply a generall restraint a desistance from all worke No they doe not neither shall you finde in these nor in any other records of antiquity any constitutions of the Apostles and of the first Church extant to that 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 best nursing Father of Christian religion that ever Prince was would he I say have licensed by his decree the country people freely liberè 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 and approved councells of the Church inioyne the vacancy of the Lords day with this condition And if men can Certainely servants full ill can if they be constrained by their Masters to worke would they I say have added such a condition had it beene simply unlawfull 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 universall constitutions of the Church The actuall forbearing of all workes by some Christians that day 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 universall 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 government of the whole Church by our Saviour was committed and the canons of the universall Synods no positive constitution can doe Answer Having made it evident that the Commandement of God stands in force for our Sabbath I might easily cast off all that you shall say to the end of your Discourse but to cleare and scoure the coast and make it apparant that what you say is nothing and all maketh for us who in this thing hold the Truth we proceede You say you finde nothing for the generall restraint of works on the Lords day in any Historie cannon monument and register of Antiquitie but cleare evidence to the contrarie First for the first let the places you alleage speake out that all may heare them and not be blindly huddled up That in Euseb l. 4. cap. 22. is a passage in the Epistle of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth to Soter Bishop of Rome concerning the accustomed reading of the Epistle of Clement to the Corinths in their publike assemblies on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lords day of which hee saith thus Wee have spent or passed through to the end of it the Lords day to day an Holy day Now to spend the Lords day throughout an holy day is not to spend any of it in servile worke let Scripture Heathen writers and all men testifie this was done saith that Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After their ancient custome Iustin Martyr after he hath recorded all the duties of their publike assemblies addeth this having spoken in the