this doctrine or the mischiefes that may ensue of it in the cōmonwealth I will not meddle I will not censure the one nor divine of the other you are a teacher of Gods word within the compas of that word I will stay with you and by it examine with your patience whether this frame of your doctrine be grounded on the rocke or on the sand on the firme rocke of Gods law or on the fickle sand of your owne fantasie misunderstanding the law and so whether it tend to the edification or ruine of the Church For touching the commanding of the Sabaoth vpon which I averre this doctrine of yours cannot be grounded lay it before you and consider it well And tell me to whom is the charge of seruants ceasing from worke on the Saboath day giuen Is it to the seruants themselues or to their Masters It is giuen of seruants I confesse their worke is the matter of the commandement But I demand whether it be giuen imposed to the seruants themselues or to the Masters whose seruants they are For if the commandement be not giuen to them then doe not they transgresse the commandements if by their Masters they be set to worke but the Masters to whom the law was giuen that the seruant should not worke consequently the sinne is their Masters and not theirs so if the law be not imposed to them then it requireth no obedience of them It obligeth them not therefore is neither the transgression of it any sinne to them but only to those to whom it was giuen as a law For the better cleering of which point let me aske you a question or two of other commandements that for their forme are paralell to this and whereof you haue no preiudice God commanded the Israelites that no stranger should eate of the paschall lambe againe that no Ammonite nor Moabite should enter into the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation Good Sit tell me did the stranger sinne if hee eat of the passeouer being supposed invited Or did the Ammonites or Moabites sin if they came into the congregation being admitted Did the stranger I say and the Ammonites and the Moabites in these cases sin of whom the commandements were giuen or the Israelites to whom the commandements were giuen touching them no but it is clearely the Lords meaning that the Israelites should not admit of any gentile to the participation of the Passeouer nor receiue the Ammonites and Moabites into the congregation of the Lord Let me aske you one question more of a case that hath fallen in my remembrance A precept comes out from the Prince That every Cittizen in London shall on such a day keepe his seruants within doores and not suffer them to goe a broad If not withstanding that precept some Master sends forth his seruant about his businesse doth the seruant transgresse the Princes commandement by obeying his masters Or ought he by pretence of that precept to disobey his Master and neglect his charge It is plaine he doth the former and therefore he ought not to doe the latter For the commandement was giuen to his master not to him and the purpose of it was to restraine his Master from commanding such seruice and not to restraine the seruant from obeying his Master if it were commanded there it is apparent that the obligations of commandements pertaineth to them to whom they are prescribed as rules and not to them of whom only as being the matter of the precept they are prescribed Now that that clause of the Commandement touching seruants was not giuen to the seruants them selues but to their Masters in whose power and disposition they are the text and tenour of the commandement doth clearly import for marke it well and answere me to whom is this speech directed Neither thy sonne nor thy daughter shall doe any worke on the Sabaoth day is it not to the Parents For can this manner of speech thy sonne thy daughter be rightly directed to any other then the parent and is not by the same reason the clause that next followeth neither shall thy man seruant nor thy maid-seruant doe any worke on the Sabaoth day directed to the Masters of such seruants Seeing that phrase of speech thy man seruant thy maidseruant cannot rightly be vsed to any other It is therefore as cleare as the Sunne euen to meane vnderstandings if they will giue but meane attendance to the tenour of Gods commandements rather then the fond interpretations and deprauations of men that that clause of the commandement touching seruants cessation from working on the Sabaoth is not giuen to seruants themselues but to their Masters concerning them Or if to any darke vnderstanding which some grosse cloud may ouershadow this seeme not cleere enough the declaration yet of Moses himselfe touching the commandement will make it so of Moses I say who can neither be suspected of ignorance as hauing beene with the Lord 40 daies together in the Mountaine when he receiued the tables of the commandements with whō the Lord talked familiarly as a man doth with his friend nor yet of corruption as being by the Lords mouth pronounced faithfull in all his house he therefore in the 5 of Deuter. 14. which is only the place of Scripture besides the 20 of Exodus where all the branches of that commandement are repeated after the seuerall prohibitions touching the workes of sonnes seruants cattell c. addeth this Epiphonema That thy man servant and thy maidseruant may rest as well as thou It is to this thou therefore to whom this charge is directed that the seruants should rest vpon the Sabaoth who can be conceiued to be no other then the master of those seruants which yet moreouer the reason of that commandement touching seruants rest immediatly added will better cleare from all exception for remember saith Moses that thy selfe wast a seruant in the land of Aegypt and the Lord thy God brought thee out thence with a mighty hand and an out stretched arme Therefore the Lord thy God hath commanded thee to make a day of rest for to whom was that spoken remember that thy selfe wast a seruant in the land of Aegypt but to them that had beene servants and now were not seruants Or to what intent and purpose is that remember brought in remember that thy selfe wast a seruant but to moue compassion in them towards their owne servants and allow them a time of rest hauing themselues felt the burthen and affliction of seruants in Aegypt and remembring how glad they would haue beene of some remission but if the commandement of rest had beene directly and immediatly giuen to seruants themselues what needed any perswasion to that effect Would not seruants over set and wearied with six daies toile be of themselues glad to rest on the seauenth Or would they be so hot set on worke whereby yet they gained nothing but their labour for their paines and the profit being another mans
for it if they did soe worke It is therefore to be vnderstood of them that worke willingly of themselues or as authors cause others to worke as masters doe their servants not of them who only as ministers and against their wills are set to worke And rather because the worke of the servant that I say which hee doth by the commandement of his master to whom for matter of labour he is meerely subordinate euen reason and equity will interpret the masters worke And certainly that God accounteth it so the declaratioÌ„ of that precept in another place doth make manifest Sixe daies thou shalt doe thy worke and the seaventh day thou shalt rest that thine Oxe and thine Asse and thy Sonne and thy Maide c. may be refreshed for is it not manifest that the servants worke is accounted the Masters seeing the rest from the Masters worke is the refreshing of the servants the Master therefore who by the morall law was commanded that his servants should not worke on the Sabaoth was by the Iudiciall to bee punished with death if the servant did worke that day by his commandement And thus haue I proued my assertion namely that the commandement of the Sabaoth was not giuen nor fit to be giuen to the servants themselues but to their gouernours both by arguments of reason which is the rule of men and authority of Scriptures which is the rule of Christians and cannot finde any thing materiall in either of both that may reproue it but yet if I should admit which I doubt you will neuer proue that the commandement was directly giuen to servants themselues as servants and that they might lawfully disobey their Masters touching those workes where by the precept of the Sabaoth might be transgressed yet haue I another exception against your doctrine namely for condemning every light worke such as inviting of guests or fetching of wine from a neighbours house or giuing a horse provender for these are the very instances which bred the question for transgression of Gods commandements forbidden on the Sabaoth no it is not the commandement importeth no such thing for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is every worke but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is there forbidden that is every servile worke for such the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly doth import and servile worke by the interpretation of the best diuines is accounted either that which is attended with the toile of the body or at least intended and directed to lucre and gaine of riches with some care of the minde such as mens ordinary worke is wont to bee on common daies And that the worke there forbidden hath a speciall relation to the gaine of riches is the better appareÌ„t because the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth opes as well as opus riches as well as worke and not only where the commandement was pronounced in the 20 of Exodus but wheresoeuer it is repeated in the bookes of the lawâ— which is oftentimes and differently for other circumstances the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is euer retained and never changed not every worke therefore absolutely but every worke of such a kinde namely consisting in toile and tending to gaine is restrained by the commandement and is there not evident reason to vnderstand it so For seeing the intendment of the precept is clearly in the point of that daies vacation that the body should be refreshed by abstinence from labour And in the point of sanctification of it the mind should be refreshed by attendance to spirituall exercise it followeth manifestly that if there be any workes that resolue not the body and so hinder not the refreshing of it nor dissolue and alienate the minde from the service of God and meditation of Godlinesse that these workes are not forbidden because neither the vacation which the commandement importeth nor that sanctification which it intendeth is impeached by them And if you will obiect that euen very light workes are expressely forbidden in the law so that to kindle fire on the sabaoth day was vnlawfull I must answere you that that and some other were but ceremoniall precepts not morall and belonged to the curious observance of the commandement and therefore obliged the Iewes and none else for that such light and labourlesse workes on the Sabaoth were no transgression at all of the morall commandement the practise of him whose every action was our instruction of him who was the giuer of the law as God and the only keeper of it as man will put all out of questioÌ„ for had that exact and extreame vacation on the Sabaoth beene required by Gods morall commandement and so every light worke beene a transgression of it would not our Sauiour haue repooued the Iewes for loosing their beasts from the staules and leading them to water on the Sabaoth day Yet hee mentioneth and reproues it not and thinke S r by the way he that condemned not bringing of beasts to drinke would not condemne bringing meat to beasts or would he haue not suffered only but excused the plucking of eares of corne and rubbing out the graines on the Sabaoth day as he did in his disciples or would he himselfe on the Sabaoth day haue made clay and anointed with it the eyes of the blinde or would he haue commanded others to doe such workes on the Sabaoth as he did the impotent man whom he had healed namely to take vp his bed that day and depart See then how this seuere precisenesse of yours agreeth with the practise and doctrine of our Saviour who not only suffered these light workes to be done without reprehension but excused them but did them himselfe but commanded others to doe them therefore in his iudgement who was the law giuer and must be the Iudge of all the sinnes of men they were no transgression of the commandement of the Sabaoth For vaine it were to reply that Christ was Lord of the Sabaoth and therefore might dispence with the commandement at his owne pleasure vaine it were I say for although he were Lord of the Sabaoth as God being so the law giuer yet was he subiect to the commandement as man being as the Apostle saith made vnder the law for what else importeth that kinde of speech made vnder the law but that he which by nature was not vnder the law as being God was yet made vnder the law as becomming man which law first himselfe pronounced he came â—o fulfill and secondly his Apostles that hee had fulfilled it in that he had no sinne but every transgression of the law was sinne therefore in no sort he transgreffed the law and it not only were not vaine in this manner to excuse our Saviours actions but a very hard dangerous point when question is made of our Saviours fulfilling of the law to fly in this case to the refuge of dispensations as if our Sauiour that came to satisfy for
all our transgressions of the law performed not the law himfelfe with such perfect exact obedience as might answere the justice of God and the strictresse of his commandements but that something must be helped or supplied by dispensation The truth is therefore that our Sauiours obedience answered exactly and perfectly satisfied the exigence of that and all other commandements of Almighty God performing all to the vtmost that they required and therefore those easie and slender workes were no breaches of the commandement touching the Saboth But let that be admitted also first that the commandement was immediatly giuen to seruants Secondly that it was giuen touching the lightest degree of workes Let servants bee the persons and those workes the matter to whom and of which the commandement was giuen is your doctrine yet iustified hereby and subiect to no other reproofe The persons haue afforded me exceptions against it because the commandement was not giuen to seruants And the matter because it was not imposed touching that light sort of workes the time also will because it cānot be vnderstood of the Lords day for what day was it of which the charge of vacation was so strictly giuen Was it not the seauenth day of the weeke The seauenth saith the precept is the Sabaoth of the Lord thy God In it thou shalt doe no worke And why the seauenth Because in sixe daies the Lord finished all the workes of creation and rested the seauenth day therefore he sanctified the seauenth day what day is it whereof we question The Lords day That 's the first day of the weeke It is therefore the seauenth day of the weeke the Sabaoth of the Iewes not the first day of the weeke the Sabaoth of Christians that was so strictly by Gods commandement destined to rest Therefore the workes done on the Sabaoth day are no transgressions of Gods commandements But you will say the old Sabaoth is abolished and the celebration of it translated to the first day of the weeke Translated by whom By any commandement of God Where is it The holy Scripture wee know to be sufficient it containeth all the commandements of God whether of things to be done or to be avoided or to be beleeued Let me heare either one precept one word of God out of the olde Testament that it should be translated or one precept one word of the sonne of God out of the new Testament commanding it to be translated I say one word of any of his Apostles intimating that by Christs commandement it was translated It is certaine that there is none Therefore it is evident that the solemnity of the Lords day was not established Iure divino Not by any commandement of God and consequently that to worke on that day is certainly no breach of any divine commandement How then hath the first day of the weeke gained the celebration and solemnity to become the Sabaoth of the Christians By the constitution of the Church and only by that yet of that most ancient Church I confesse that next followed the ascention of our redeemer But yet all this is but Ius humanum it is but the decree of men which must not equall it selfe with Gods commandement and must be content with a lesse degree of authority and obligation then the commandement touching the Sabaoth might challenge that was pronounced in the eares of men with the voice of God and written in tables with the finger of God What then doe I doubt of the iust abolishment of the Iewes Sabaoth no in no sort it is abolished and that iustly I confesse yet not by any repeale of any contrary decree but only by expiration because it is growen out of date It was established for a signe * of difference betwixt the people of God and the prophane nations the Iewes and Gentiles but this difference is ceased the partition wall is broken downe Iewes and Gentiles in Christ are made all one all are become the people of God the Sabaoth was saith the Apostle a shadow * of things to come whereof the body was in Christ the body therefore being come what should the shadow be expressed For was it the shadow of Christs resting in the graue that day That is past or was it a shadow of rest and liberty from the slauery of sinne in the kingdome of grace that is obtained or is it a shadow of the eternall rest of the blessed in the kingdome of Glory That is sure to be obtained Christ hath giuen his word and wee haue receiued the pledge of his holy spirit These things are shadowed in Sabaoth And these things are already performed in Christ. The first is past the second is present the third is assured The Sabaoth therefore that was the shadow of these things when the things themselues were come vanished of it selfe But might not the celebration of the Sabaoth which thus ceased bee justly translated by the Church to the first day of the weeke Yes certainly both might and was iustly For I consider that the generality was of the morall law of the law of nature namely that men should sequester sometime from worldly affaires which they might dedicate to the honour of God only the speciality that is the limitation and designement of that time was the churches ordinance appointing first one certaine day that in relation of Christian assemblies namely that they might meete and pray and praise God together with one voice in the congregation And secondly defigning that one day to the first day of the weeke for some speciall reasons and remembrances For first it was the day of Christs resurrection from the dead Secondly it was the day of the holy Ghosts descention from Heauen to powre infinite graces vpon Christians The first of them for our iustification as the Apostle speaketh The second for the sanctification and edification of the whole Church to omit some other reasons of lesse importance iustly therefore was the consecration of the Sabaoth translated to that day But 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 obserued vnder the same obligation with the Sabaoth For if the commandement of God were not translated by the Church together with the celebration from the seauenth day to the first day then is working on the first day 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 seaventh For could the Church make that Gods commandement which was not his commandement Gods commandement was to rest on the seauenth day and worke on the first
therefore to rest on the first and worke on the seauenth was not his commandement For doth the same commandement of God enioyne both labour and rest on the same day Is there fast and loose in the same commandement with God Thou shalt worke on the first day saith that and worke on the seaventh saith this Can the Church make these the same commandement But say the Church hath this incredible vnconceivable power Say it may forbid to worke on the first day by the vertue of the very same precept That doth neither expresly cōmand 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 vpon the Christians for keeping of the Lords day Did the Church this no no they did it not all the wit learning in the World will not proue it But you may obiect if the old Sabaoth vanished and the commandement of God was limited fixed to that day only then is one of Gods commandements perished 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 seaven 2 the seaventh 3 one whole day 4 with precise vacancy from all worke were meerely ceremoniall the specialities then of the commandements are vanished But for the generality of it it is a law of nature and remaineth But as the speciality of that commandement implyeth plaine contradiction with the sabaaticall of the Lords day so the generality of it can enforce nothing for it for these are miserable consequents indeede plaine fallacies of the consequent that God hath sometime commanded vacancie for his honour therefore he hath commanded the first day of the weeke to be that time or this God hath commanded vs some time to rest therefore that time we must precisely abstaine from all māner of workes can the Church make these good consequences If it cannot the celebration of the Lords day can with no enforcement of reason be deduced out of the morality of Gods commandement But if you will reply that the Church hath established the first day of the weeke to be the Christians sabaoth not by way of consequence as deducing it out of commandement but meerely by authority appropriating and fixing Gods morall commandement to it you may say your pleasure but I shall neither beleeue nor you proue that such authority belongs to the Church or that such an act hath beene established by the Church which I am sure you can neuer doe neither of both for seeing that all divines acknowledge that the singling out of such a day to be sanctified namely the seauenth rather then any other was meerely ceremoniall although it was Gods owne designation I hope that you will confesse the speciall designement of the first day of the weeke to that honour before other daies being made only by the Church to bee also but ceremoniall But certaine it is that no ceremonies which come not vnder the obligation of Gods morall law should oblige to the obseruation of ceremonies Therefore it will never consist with reason that the morall law of God can by any authority of the Church oblige Christians to the celebration of the Lords day It is not therefore the translation of the old commandement of God from the one day to the other which yet if it were translated can oblige servants no otherwise then it did vnder the old law but the institution of a new commandement of the Church her selfe yet guided by the spirit of God that consecrated that day to the solemne seruice of God what then doth not the constitution of the Church for the celebration of the Lords day binde equally the consciences of men as the old commandement did for the celebration of the Sabaoth Binde it doth but not equally for the Church is no way equall vnto God the authority of it is lesse then the authority of God therefore is the obligation of the Churches ordinance lesse then the obligation of Gods ordinance But yet binde the conscience it doth and that firmely and effectually even the conscience of every member of the Church to true and exact obedience For he * that heareth not the Church is no better then an heathen or a publican And neuer was Church on earth more vndefiled then that that ordained that institution He that despiseth the Apostles of Christ despiseth Christ himselfe and the Apostles were governours of that Church for acknowledged it is that the celebration of the Lords day was the ordinance of that Church and of those gouernours Therefore it is sure that that ordinance doth oblige the conscience of every Christian man but if you aske me how farre doth that constitution of the Church oblige the conscience I answere you as farre as it doth command you will desire no more further it cannot It cannot oblige further then it doth ordaine it cannot bind the conscience for guiltinesse further then it doth for obedience because all guiltinesse doth presuppose disobedience now that the Church ordained solemne assemblies of Christians to be celebrated that day to the honour of God and in them the invocation of Gods holy name thankesgiuing hearing of the holy Scriptures and receiuing of the Sacraments is not denied It is out of question all antiquity affordeth plentifull remembrance of it But that it inioyneth that severe exact vacation frō all workes on the Lords day which the commandement of God required in the Iewes Sabaoth you will never proue It relisheth too much of the Iewish ceremonies to be proued by Christian divinity For this is no proofe of it that the Lords day is succeeded in place of the Sabaoth Or as some diuines tearme it as the heyre of the Sabaoth It is I say no proofe at all except it were established by the same authority and the observance of it charged with the same strictnesse of commandement for if it succeede the sabaoth in place must it therefore succeed in equall precisenesse of obseruation So if the Pope succeedeth Peter in place 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 extreame vacation from every kinde 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
A LEARNED TREATISE OF THE SABAOTH WRITTEN By M r EDWARD BREREWOOD Professor in Gresham Colledge LONDON TO M r NICOLAS BYFIELD Preacher in Chester With M r BYFIELDS answere and M r BREREWOODS REPLY AT OXFORD Printed by Iohn Lichfield Printer to the Famous Vniversity for Thomas Huggins An. Dom. 1630. Proue all things hold fast that which is good 1 Thes. 5. 21. For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodnesse and righteousnesse and truth prouing what is acceptable to the Lord Ephes. 5. 9. 10. Holy Father Sanctify them through thy truth Thy word is truth Ioh 17. 17. These faults I desire the reader to amend before he read the booke PAGE 9. line 10. leaue out and p. 25. l. 13. read consecration for participation p. 27. l. 17. r. not of the for not the pag. 28. l. 2. r. commandement for commandements l. 7. read Gods command f. God commands p. 29. l. 26. read greater for great p 30. l. 3. r. per accidens for per accidence l. 15. r. thereof for thereon p. 32. l 4. r. servant for seruants p. 30. l. 21. r. respected for expressed l. 29. r. in the Sabaoth for in Sabaoth p. 42. l. 5 r. of the commandement for of commandent p. 47. l. 14. r. their for there p. 54. l. 7. r. haruest for heauinesse p. 68. l. r. perpetuall for perpetually p 79. figure 9. r. volly for vally p. 81. M r Brerewoods text should be continued p. 90. r. short for shord p. 91. r. for a great part for of a great profit p. 91. l. 23. r. who for whose p. 94. for should be out ib. the for your p. 95. the gap at appointment should not be nor any point Many mispointings and lesser faults there are by the darkenesse of the copy and the oversight of the Printer which the iudicious reader may easily correct A TREATISE OF THE SABAOTH WRITTEN BY M r EDWARD BREREWOOD to M r NICHOLAS BYFIELD preacher in Chester SIR I am but a stranger vnto you yet I am bold to trouble you because you haue troubled me with as strange an occasion There is a young man one Iohn Brerewood dwelling in this Citty but borne in that whom his Father Graundfather when they left this World left very young And left he was especially to my care who am his vnckle That youth I placed here in London to serue in condition of an apprentice and placed he is with a man of so good religion report trade that if I might haue picked him a master in the whole City I thinke I should haue chosen none before him In this mans service hee hath spent two years and more and God shewing him and in his behalfe me also more mercy then either of vs deserued I began to receiue comfort of him after some sorrow that his former vntowardnes had caused and to recouer good hope after my former doubt and feare but yet for all this Gods good pleasure it was to abate this contentment of mine and by the youths new follies to bring me into new perplexities for being not long since sent to Chester about his Masters businesse he returned againe so strangely altered that I haue seldome seene in so short a time so great a change For so deiected he was in his countenance so dull and wretchlesse about his businesse so alienated quite from his master and so obstinately resolued whether by faire means or by fowle to forsake his seruice that I was not fuller of sorrow to see him so changed then of wonder to imagine how he became so And yet the care and paines I tooke by the endeavour of my selfe and of my friends to recouer and to resettle him was equall to both and so much more they were because I laboured to cure a disease whereof I could not perceiue the cause For the pretences which at first hee made of the vnablenesse of his body and toilesomenes of his seruice I know were but fained excuses or else complaints of lazinesse as being assured that there are 20000 in this City of lesse bones that make noe bones of greater labour But the true cause of all this distemper fell out to be at last a case of conscience and full glad I was that the case proved no worse then that he had such feeling of conscience for I had imagined sundry others although it grieued me not a little to see his conscience so seduced and the point that pricked him was this his Master on the Lords day sent him forth sometimes on arrands as to bid guests or fetch wine giue his horse provender which last his Master remēbreth not that euer he bad him past once or about some other light businesse he was instructed he said that to doe these things or any other worke on the Sabaoth day although it were such work as might lawfully be done on another day and although he did it not of his owne disposition but only in obedience to his Masters command yet was a sinne and transgression of Gods commandements touching the Sabaoth and that he was not bound to yeeld nay that hee sinned against God in yeelding obedience to euery such commandement of his Masters that day which by the precept of almighty God was wholely precisely consecrated to rest and the service of God To this effect he told me he was instructed when he was in Chester and that you S r were his chiefe instructer out of which doctrine he deduced as naturall reason rightly taught him to doe that he ought in such cases to reiect the comcommand of his Master and in no sort to performe it which because he could not doe without his masters great offence and his owne affliction he saw no other course to be taken but to forsake his masters service that so becomming his owne Master he might not be commanded to sinne against God Which resolution of the young mans being so peremptory and obstinate as for a time I found it to be if it moued me both to melancholy and anger who can iustly blame me For I saw not only a poore youth my neere kinsman entangled with the conscience of another mans sinne if it be sinne but withall his vtter ruine for his condition in this World hardly ventured his Master wronged his friends grieued and my selfe especially indammaged that am in bond deepely ingaged for him and yet this was not all that inwardly afflicted me but some thing there was beside that might well stirre as patient an heart as mine to indignation Namely because I perceiued this doctrine of yours whereof this resolution of his proceeded and his ruine was likely to follow neither to haue good beginning nor likely to haue good ending but to beginne in ignorance and to end in sinne to beginne in mistaking the Law of God to end in the wicked disobedience of seruams to their Masters in the rebellious contempt of the lawes of men But for the transgression of mens lawes by
that the commandement of God could not restraine them but they needed also to be perswaded Or if perswasion had beene needful were this a convenient perswasion to vse to seruants Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Aegypt which euen now when they were out the land of Aegypt were seruants And to proceede with the text what other importance hath that other reason which immediatly followeth And remember that the Lord thy God hath brought thee thence out of Aegypt with a mighty hand and out-stretched arme Therefore the Lord thy God hath commanded thee to make a day of rest Hath it any other but to declare that the Lord who had redeemed them from their continuall slaueries hath iust title right to impose on them the commandement of the Sabaoth for their servants rest importing as much as if he had said although of thy selfe thou shouldest haue compassion of thy seruant and allow him rest Remembring that thy selfe wast a seruant in the land of Aegypt yet art thou more effectually obliged to doe it because the Lord hath commanded thee The Lord that brought thee out of thraldome and vncessant labours in Aegypt and therefore hath reason to command one daies rest in a weekes revolution Thee that by his redeeming hand art set at liberty from that labour and seruitude Where marke againe that the Lord is said to haue commanded them who a little before were said to be seruants in Aegypt and by his goodnesse were freed from that slauery which reason could not be intended or directed to them which still remained in servitude It is cleare therefore that all this perswasion of Moses for servants resting on the Sabaoth was not directed to the seruants themselues who to take their ease on the Sabaoth needed neither to be commanded nor intreated licence would serue their turne but to the Masters whose desire of gaine by the seruants labour might stand betwixt the Sabaoth and the seruants rest and to make an end with the text with the last wordes of it what is it that the Lord for these reasons commanded was it barely to keepe obserue the Sabaoth as it is in the vulgar English Latine and Greeke translations No they are all short it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to make a day of rest Now to make it to be so importeth not only to obserue it himselfe but to cause others also to obserue it which is euidently the property of Masters and gouernors wherefore seeing both the commandement touching seruants rest from labour on the Sabaoth day and reasons added by Moses to perswade that point and draw their mindes to obsequiousnesse are evidently directed to the Masters and not neither of both to the seruants themselues I take it out of all question as cleare as the Sunshine at midday that if seruants by their Masters command doe any worke on the Sabaoth the sinne is not theirs who as touching their bodily labour are meerely subiect to their Masters power but it is their Masters sin for their sin it is that transgres the law They transgresse the law who are obliged by it they are obliged by it to whom it was giuen and imposed and giuen it was as I haue plentifully proued only to Masters Or if notwithstanding all these euidences you will still contend that the prohibition touching bodily labour on the Sabaoth is directly imposed on the seruants themselues see whether you bring not the Oxe and the Asse and other cattle also vnder the obligation of this commandement whose worke is immediatly after that of seruants prohibited and precisely vnder the same forme of words whose labours yet on the Sabaoth I hope you will not say to be in them sinnes and transgressions of Gods law But as the labour of the beast is the sinne and transgression of the Master to whom the commandement of the beasts resting from labour wasgiuen so is the labour of the seruant also which by the Masters commandment he executed on that day as being touching bodily seruice incident to mankinde in like degree of subiection the Masters sinne and not the seruants For distinction must be made betweene the matter and the forme if to speake in schoolemens stile offend you not that is betweene the act and the guilt of sinne of which in this case the act indeede wherewith the commandement of the Sabaoth is violated is the servants but the crime and guiltinesse is the Masters that sets him on worke for seeing sin formally taken is nothing else but the transgression of the law or vnlawfulnesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle tearmeth it most properly exactly even as guiltines is the obligation to punishment for that transgression it appeareth manifestly that his is the guiltinesse whose the transgression is and his the transgression to whom the law was prescribed as a rule that is the Masters to whom it is not only imposed that he himselfe should doe no worke on that day as a particular man in the first clause Thou shalt doe no worke but also that none of his should doe any as he is the Father or Master of a family in those clauses that follow Neither shall thy sonne nor thy daughter nor manseruant nor maid-servant c. which latter point touching his keeping of the Sabaoth viz. as the gouernour of his house had not beene so well provided for and regulated by the law of God if these clauses of children and seruants abstinence from labour on the Sabaoth had beene giuen directly to themselues and not to their governours But you will reply perhaps that the commandement touching seruants rest on the Sabaoth is giuen to their Masters indeede but not only to them but to their seruants also No such matter for if it be let that appeare and set downe the clause wherein it is manifestly expressed or necessarily implied that seruants are forbidden all labour on the Sabaoth day as servants I say touching matter of service or labour imposed on them by their Masters for that in those workes which seruants doe on the Sabaoth day of themselues and not as proceeding from their Masters iniunction but from their owne election it is no question but they transgresse the commandement but those workes they doe not as seruants that is at anothers command but as in the condition of their seruice or favour of their Masters they retaine some degree of liberty and haue some disposition of themselues permitted vnto them so in that respect fall into the clause of free men viz. the first clause of the commandement Thou shalt doe no worke but to seruants as seruants in case they be commanded to worke which is our question there is no clause of the commandement imposed Whereby may easily and clearly be discerned the difference betwixt the equity wisdome of Almighty God in the constitution of the law of the Sabaoth obliging Parents and Masters and owners for the children seruants and cattle that
are meerely vnder their powers and the rashnesse and iniquity of wretched men interpreting the law as immediatly directly obliging the children seruants themselues for good Sir consider it well and tell me whether it be more equall to impose the law of ceasing from worke to the servants themselues or to their Masters in whose power they are Servants are not homines turis sui nor operum suorum domini as Lawyers speake they are but their Masters liuing instruments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle tearmeth them they haue noe right or power to dispose of themselues 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 seruice vnder the power commandement of their Masters and vnder their power for service only in such sort as they can neither iustly performe any labour which their Masters forbid nor omit any which their Masters command but are vnder 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 ouer their children not only a directiue but a correctiue and coactiue 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 then on them which were vtterly void and destitute of that power and liberty Whether in such a case it were not more reasonable to inioyne the Masters that they should not command then inioyne the seruants not to obey for the poore seruants if their Masters command them could not chuse but worke the law of nations bound them vnto it which had put them vnder their Masters power and inforcement but the masters might forbeare to command there was no law that bound them to that or inioyned them to exact ought of their seruants It was therefore much more agreeable both to the wisdome and iustice of Almighty God to impose the commandement rather on the Masters then on the seruants for thereby was preuented the disobedience of servants to their Masters 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 noe sort wronged for their seruants remained in their power no lesse on the Sabaoth then the other sixe common daies only the Lord did qualify and determine the act or execution of that power on the Sabaoth day namely to command their servants cessation from bodily labour instead of that to exercise themselues 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 and was it not also to his goodnesse and compassion For say that the commandement touching servants vacation was giuen to themselues 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 inioyne him some worke on the Sabaoth day couetous Masters may soone doe it especially if they thinke that precept touching their seruants cessation not to touch them or else they may be ignorant of the law of God as Christians and Iewes may happily serue Pagans Admit I say some Master commands his servant to worke 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 Charybdis standeth perplexed 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 seruant from obeying his Master and yet not restraine the Master from commanding his servant vnlawful things As it is also another absurdity that that day which by the law giuen was manifestly intended to bring seruants release and remission of their weekely toile should by the decree of the law it selfe aboue all other daies breede their greatest perplexities forasmuch as aboue 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 cleaueth to their soules or their Masters and stripes light vpon 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 then men and worse to diobey him that can cast both body and soule into hell then him that can only for a time afflict the body true who doubts it But that is not the point I stand vpon 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 seruants 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 seruants and calumniation against both the iustice and mercy of God is clearly avoided if the commandement be giuen as the tenour of it doth simply import to the Masters and not to the servants which I haue sufficiently proued both by the evidence of holy scripture soe to haue beene and by the evidence and inforcement of reason that it should be so And doth not the practise of holy gouernours registred in the Scriptures declare that they had the same vnderstanding of the commandement Nehemiah when he saw among the Iewes at Ierusalem the Sabaoth prophaned with treading of wine presses carrying of burthens buying and selling whom reproueth he for it The seruants by whose imployment and labour these things were done and the Sabaoth defiled No but them vnder whose power the servants were the rulers of Iudah and what rulers the Magistrats only Noe such matter but the freemen of Iudah that is to say the Masters of those Servants for such namely freemen the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there vsed doth properly import not only the Magistrats or rulers of the commonwealth for the septuagint which being them selues Iewes I hold best knew the property of their owne language translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word is properly and directly opposed to seruants euery where almost in the old Testament where the hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found which is
knowne to signify a freeman and is translated in the greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is in the chalde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is manifestly knowen to be the same with the hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but farre more vsuall in the Chaldie tongue They were the freemen of Iudah then that by Nehemiah were called to account and reprooued for the prophanation of the Sabaoth by those seruile labours which no question had beene executed by their seruants but if the seruants by those labours had themselues transgressed the commandement had he not done both iustly to haue made them partakers of the reproofe who had beene partakers of the sinne seeing the commandement of God lay equall on both and wisely to that if he could not restraine the masters from commanding yet hee might restraine the seruants from obeying and so haue two strings to his bow This Nehemiah did not who vnderstood well the commandement but rebuked the freemen or Masters only and omitted the servants and yet dealt you will not deny I am sure both iustly and 〈◊〉 for had he done more wisely thinke you to rebuke seruants for not resting on the Sabaoth that would haue rested with all their hearts if they had not beene constrained to worke Or had hee done more iustly to exact that of the seruants which for ought that appeareth the commandement of God exacted not from them For what worke is it that men are forbidden of the Sabaoth Is it not the same that is permitted on the sixe daies their owne worke Thou shalt doe all thy worke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is it the servants worke where about as a servant he is imployed that neither is vndertaken of himselfe nor for himselfe that neither beginneth nor endeth in himselfe but beginneth in his Masters command and endeth meerely in his Masters profit and from beginning to end is performed in his Masters feare It is manifest that in the accompt of God it is not for God beholdeth the heart and that is a mans owne worke with him that proceedeth from his owne will And therefore in Isaiah it is the will that is forbidden about the prophaning of the Sabaoth that which in the law was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy worke is there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy will and that most iustly for the will it selfe indeede is the proper seat and subiect of sinne which essentially is nothing else but the inordinate or vnruly election or resolution of the will varying from the Scripture or Gods law for this very election of mans will is the proper forme of actuall sinne these outward vnlawfull actioÌ„s of ours are but the expressions or manifestations or fruits or effects of sinne sin properly they are not which hath her residence and inhesion in the soule it selfe and passeth forth of it only the tincture and euidence name of sinne they carry with them because they issue from a sinfull determination of the will and are no whit further sinfull then they are voluntary Seeing therefore sinne consisteth especially in the exorbitance of the will they that are only ministers of anothers exorbitant will are only ministers of another mans sinne which so farre only becommeth their owne sinne as their owne will concurreth therevnto The servant therefore doeing that worke on the Sabaoth day in obedience to his Master which of his owne will and election he would not doe although the worke whereby the commandement of God is transgressed be in some sort his yet the transgression is none of his but his Masters that exacted the worke so that although the worke as naturally considered be the servants yet morally it is the Masters The labour of it is the servants but the sinne of it is the Masters for the sinne is not the seruants obedience to the Masters commandment but in the Masters disobedience to Gods commandement which hath indeede prohibited the worke of seruants in the Sabaoth but yet the prohibition is imposed and directed to their Masters not to them who are only ministers not authors of their owne labours now in the imputation of sinne difference is to be made betwixt the authors and the ministers Betwixt the principall instrumentall agents For is it the sinne of the eye when it beholdeth vanity and of the tongue when it is loose to blaspheame slander ly or of the hand when it is stretched forth to strike and shed blood They may be tearmed the sinnes of these members I confesse because in these sinnes these members are abused but are these workes properly the sinnes of these instruments or of the dissolute minde of those subordinate Ministers and servants of the soule that performe their naturall obedience or of the inordinate soule herselfe that misgouerneth them But you may obiect that these are naturall instruments in the workes of the soule and conferre only power but the seruant is a voluntary instrument in the workes of his Master and conferreth also will I answere he conferreth will indeede if he be a good seruant by reason of the obligation of obedience wherein he standeth to his Master but yet not absolute but conditionall will not the selfe election but only the obedience and yeelding of his wil and that onely as it is his masters worke not as it is his Masters sinne for the worke on the Sabaoth hauing sinne annexed to it so being a sinfull worke the servant and the Master must diuide it betwixt them the worke is the seruants and the sinne is the masters for the seruant doth but his duty in obeying his Masters commandement but the Master transgresseth his in disobeying Gods coÌ„mandement touching his seruants ceasing from that labour But seeing I haue begunne to obiect I will proceede a little farther in that course both the more euidently to declare my meaning least it be obnoxious to calumniation and also to resolue the obiections that may be produced against seruants obedience touching worke on the Sabaoth if my imagination be so good as to finde them and my learning also to satisfy them For first it seemes that servants are touching this commandement in better condâ—â—â—on then other men if by their workes on the Sabaâ—th they transgresse it not and transgresse it they doe not if it be not imposed on them but only on their Masters Touching them I answere that the workes of servants are of two sorts some proceeding from them as they are seruants that is vpon their Masters commandement others proceeding from their owne election vnto which namely not by any commandement of their Masters but by the way of their owne desires they are carried Of the first sort of workes they are only Ministers of the second they are authors And touching this second sort I confesse although of the former it be farre otherwise both that seruants haue a severall obligation of their owne that their transgression and sinne is seuerall therefore that themselues are bound to answere it
to the iustice of God but whether the sinne of these second workes be peculiarly the seruants or that the Master also participate with the seruant in that guiltinesse It may be a question for if they be done meerely by the seruants election beside the knowledge and contrary to the commandement of his Master it seemes to be particularly the servants sinne But if they be occasioned by the Masters negligence then doth he certainly participate in guiltinesse with his seruant although in a diuerse sort for it is a sinne of commission in the servant 〈◊〉 vnlawfull act and a sinne of omission 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 neglecting his due care because by the 〈◊〉 Almiâ—hty God the Master is bound not â—nly 〈◊〉 command his seruant to worke but to command him not to worke on the Sabaoth day well then the workes which seruants doe on the Sabaoth day on their owne election are condemned the workes 〈◊〉 doe by obedience are excused by their Masters â—mandement but what workes are so excused Arâ— all No but briefly all those which while they are performed as by the Servants of men they that dâ—â—â—â—â—m are not impeached for being the servants of God That is to say the workes of labour but not the workes of sin 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 is cleare that all the other commandements being indifferently imposed without either specification or exception of any person whatsoeuer respect not any more one then another therefore hold all men vnder an equall obligation and so was it altogether conuenient because they are no lesse the secret lawes of nature then the reuealed lawes of God and no lesse written with the finger of God in the fleshly tables of the heart then in the tables of stone all of them forbidding those things that by their property and nature or as the Schoolemen say ex suo genere are euill but the commandement that forbiddeth seruile workes on the Sabaoth is of a different sort first because the servant is touching the matter which it forbiddeth labour wholly subiect 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 ex suo genere as the matters of the other negatiue commandements are but only circumstantially because it s done vpon such a day for idolatry blasphemy dishonouring of Parents murther adultery theft false testimony coueting of that is other mens which are the matter of other commandements are euill in their owne nature and therefore forbidden because they are euill 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 natiue ilnesse in the other causeth the prohibition but the prohibition in this causeth the evill for labouring on the seaventh day if God had not forbidden it had not beene evill at all no more then 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 be withdrawen from their bodily labours and to be dedicated to the honour of God which euen the prophanest Gentiles amidst all the blind superstition and darkenesse wherewith they were couered 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 obserue one day in the number of seauen as a certaine day of that number and namely the seauenth in the ranke or a whole day by the revolution of the Sunne and with that seuere exactnesse of restraining all worke as was enioyned to the Iewes is but meerely ceremoniall brought in by positiue law and is not of the law of nature For had that forme of keeping Sabaoth beene a law of nature then had it obliged the Gentiles as well as the Iewes seeing they participate both equall in the same nature yet it did not so but was giuen to the Israelites to be 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 euer obserued by any of the holy Patriarches before it was pronounced in mount Sinai But if it had beene a law of nature her selfe and so had obliged all the Patriarches 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 vs 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 haue 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 chiefly theirs which first translated the celebration of that day being the seauenth to the first day of the weeke who yet are certainly supposed to be none other then the Apostles of our Saviour To turne to the point and clearly to determine it the Master only is accountable vnto 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 sinne and how for the workes of labour Namely if he doe them not absolutely of his owne election but respectiuely as of obedience to his Masters command for touching labours servants are directly obliged to their Masters But touching sinnes themselues 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 receiued immediatly a direct commandement to the contrary from his Master in heauen For it is better to obey God then man And there is no proportion betwixt the duties which they owe as servants to their Masters according to the flesh And which they owe as Children to the father of spirits or betwixt the obligation wherein they stand to men who haue power but ouer their bodies in limited cases and that for a season And that infinite obligation wherein they stand to him that is both creator preserver and redeemer Iudge of body and soule sinne therefore they may not if their Masters command them because God hath forbidden them not only forbidden I say but forbidden it them But labour they may if their Masters command them because God hath no way
and prerogatiue of the Saoth was not giuen to the Sabaoth and its heires it it was no fee simple and if I may speake in the lawyers stile it was only a tenure for tearme of life namely during the life of the ceremoniall law which life ended in the death of our Saviour This reason therefore of the succession of the Lords day in place of the Sabaoth is no reason Any other reason besides this or else authority which I might in your behalfe obiect to my selfe I know none worthy mentioning for the commandement of God as I haue proved is not of this day The commandement of the Church is of this day but not of these workes neither will all the histories of the ancient Church nor cannons of the ancient councells nor any other monuments or registers of antiquity afford you as I am certainly perswaded search them as curiously as you can record of any such constitution of the Church for the generall restraint of workes on the Lords day you may finde I know in some of the ancient Fathers much sounding the prerogatiue of that day as that it was a holy day in Eusebius a day of Christian assemblies in Iustin Martyr and a day of reioycing in Tertullian a festivall day in Ignatius and some more of the like but doth any of all these import or imply a generall restraint a desistāce from all worke No they doe not neither shall you finde in these nor in any other records of antiquity any constitutions of the Apostles and of the first Church extant to haue effect no nor any relation or remembrance that such a constitution had ever beene made by them nay I finde cleare evidence to the contrary for would Constantine the Great that most holy Emperour and the best nursing Father of Christian religion that ever Prince was would he I say haue licensed by his decree the country people freely libere liciteque are the words of the constitution to attend their sowing of graine setting of vines and other husbandry on the Lords day if those workes had beene forbidden by the commandement of God or decree of the Apostles and first Church Or would the Fathers in the councell of Laodicea one of the most ancient approued councells of the Church enioyne the vacancy of the Lords day with this condition And if men can Certainly servants full ill can if they bee constrained by their Masters to worke would they I say haue added such a condition had it beene simply vnlawfull for all sorts of people by the ancient sanctification of the first Church to doe any worke that day It appeareth therefore that there were no such vniversall constitutions of the Church The actuall forbearing of all workes by some Christians that day I stand not on nor on the exhortations of some ancient Fathers to that purpose some remembrances of both are to be found I know but these are particular examples and perswasions constitutions of the Church they are not edicts of sundry Princes likewise and decrees of some provinciall councells are extant I confesse in record to the same effect and those are constitutions indeede but partly not of the Church partly not vniversall nor very ancient and therefore are no sanctions to oblige the whole Church which beside the law of God and decrees of the Apostles to whom the goverment of the whole Church by our Saviour was committed and the canons of the vniversall Synods no positiue constitution can doe What then Would I set at liberty that euery man may freely prophane the Lords day with extraordinary labour No I would not I confesse it is meete Christians should abandon all worldly affaires that day and dedicate it wholly to the honour of God that Christians should not be lesse devout religious in celebrating of the Lords day then the Iewes were in celebrating of there Sabaoth for the obligation of our thankfulnes to God is more then theirs although the obligation of his commandement to vs in that behalfe is lesse Meete it is I say And wish with all my heart it were most religiously performed euen with all abstinence from worldly affaires and all attendance to Godly devotion But yet notwithstanding I deny that together with the institution of the Lords day there was any such constitutiō of theChurch established whereby men were obliged to the strict desisting from all worke But what doth the honour of God then stand at the courtesie of man to prophane that day if they list with worke at their pleasure Not so for beside the constitutions of some ancient councells both the edicts of christian Princes haue every where restrained that prophanation neither of which for matters that fall vnder their power can bee transgressed without sinne and disobedience to God whose commandements although not directly yet reductiuely those constitutions are for God hath commanded all men to honour their Parents the parents of their country stand in the first ranke The sonne of God hath commanded all Christians to heare the Church and that vnder forfeiture of communion of Saints but they that despise the Canons of the Church or edicts of the Prince heare not the one honour not the other therefore they that transgresse either of these constitutions transgresse also Consequently I say though not immediatly the commandements of God but yet neither of them both to come neare home are transgressed by servants if they worke by their Masters commission and not of their owne election for neither doth the one law or the other giue liberty and warrant to Servants to be rebellious to their Masters touching point of service that day more then others But in forbidding of worke first they intend not your precise abstinence from any light and labourlesse worke as both the censure of the Church and iudgement of temporall Magistrats make manifest which neuer tooke hold on any man for such manner of workes And secondly they purpose to forbid the Masters commanding or allowing of worke and not the servants obeying if he be commanded for the law is intended and taketh hold of them that haue the liberty and power to keepe it not of them that haue not but are meerely vnder the power and disposition of another man wherefore if Servants worke on the Lords day of their owne choice it is their owne sinne but if their Masters command it is their masters sinne And he standeth bound to answere the law no warrant therefore nor incouragement haue servants by any of these lawes to reiect their commandements touching matter of worke or service on the Sabaoth or any other day And is not this more agreeable to the doctrine of the holy Apostles of our Saviour every where delivered touching servants Doe they not often and with exceeding earnestnes command and exhort them to obedience no where permitting them any point of liberty and that without exception of Master of labour or of time for that we may take a very short view
of their doctrine touching servants obedience what masters are they to whom servants ought to be obedient Infidells and beleeuers saith Paul 〈◊〉 Tim. 6. 1. 2. Covetous and froward saith Peter 1. Pet. 2. 18. that is even to all obedient to all How In what sort From the heart saith the Apostle Collos. 3. 23. in singlenesse of heart as vnto Christ in another place Ephes. 6. 5. without any replying not so much as answering againe In a third Titus 3. 9. That is in all readinesse and humility obedient to all in such sort how farre In what points Even in all things servants be obedient to your Masters in all things Colos. 3. 22. please them in all things Titus 2 9. thinke them worthy of all honour 1. Tim. 6. 1. In all things Yea in all things belonging to the condition of Servants that is in all service in all labour which is the proper character of all servants and obedient to them in all things why That the name of God and his doctrine be not evill spoken of 1. Tim. 6. 1. which two last points of the Apostles doctrine touching servants obedience I would advise you S r specially to consider for whereas it is out of question that infidells exacted workes of their Christian servants as in the beginning of the Church many beleeuing seruants had vnbeleeuing masters on the Lords day no lesse then others if their yeelding to that exacting of their Masters had beene sinne would he haue commanded them to obey their Masters in all things And to please them in all things without excepting of any day or of any labour For that heathen Masters would exact of Christian servants their ordinary labour and service on the Lords day as well as on others you haue no reason to doubt except you thinke that heathen men would tender and respect more the religion of their Seruants that religion which themselues esteemed to be superstition folly then their owne profit And then if Christian seruants should haue withdrawen their obedience that day reiecting and resisting their Masters commandements whereas their vnbeleeuing servants willingly obeyed them and laboured for their profit had they not caused the name of God which they worshipped to be blaspheamed and the doctrine which they professed to be evill spoken of which was the point of the Apostles doctrine I especially remembred you of That God I say which commanded and that doctrine which instructed servants to disobey their Masters by depriving them of their seruice caused their hindrance The Apostle knew full well this was not the way to propagate the Gospell and enlarge the kingdome of Christ he knew it was Christian meekenes obedience humility patience that must doe it therefore he commandeth Christian servants to giue their Masters all honour to obey thē in all things to please thē in all things that so their Masters seeing them more serviceable profitable servants withall more vertuous then others were might sooner be drawen to like of the religion that made them such whereas the cōtrary would haue bin manifestly a scandall and grievous impeachment to the propagation of the gospell defamed it for a doctrine of contumacy and disobedience and for a seminary as it were of disturbance and sedition of families and common-wealths And not only alienated the affections of Masters from their Christian servants but inflamed all men with indignation hatred against the Christian religion and the professors of it Such therefore evidently is the importance and intendment of the Apostles doctrine as vnpartiall men whom preiudice or selfe-conceipt leads not away may soone discerne very farre differing from this doctrine of yours Touching which point of the Apostles instruction giuen to servants for this effectuall and generall obedience you will not reply I hope as some haue done that at first indeede it was permitted for the good of the Church least the increase of it and proceeding of the Gospell should be hindred by offence given to the Gentiles For would that haue beene permitted if it had beene vnlawfull Or could the Church of God be increased by the sinnes of men His Church increased by that whereby himselfe was dishonoured Or would the Apostles haue permitted men to sinne as now Iesuits doe for the good of the Church nay exhorted and commanded to it who had himselfe expresly taught that wee must not doe evill that good may come of it No neither of both can be because either of both were a staine and derogation to the righteousnesse of God the intention therefore of the Apostles was simple without all tricks of policy to teach servants all exact and entire obedience to their Masters touching all workes that belong to the duty of servants namely that were in themselues honest and lawfull without excepting of any day Neither shall you finde as I am verily perswaded and I speake not at randome if all the monuments of antiquity be searched through either the practise of Christian seruants or the doctrine of Christian preachers to haue beene any other I say you shall not finde any remēbrance in the ancient Church if you search the bookes of histories that it was the custome of Christian seruants to withdraw their obedience from their Masters on the Lords day no if you search the bookes of doctrine that every any Father or teacher of the Church so perswaded or instructed them no nor yet if you adde to them the Heathen writers also that liued in the age of the ancient Church and whereof diverse were sharpe and bitter enemies to the Christian religion and apt to take every advantage to calumniate and disgrace it such as Lucian Porphyrie Iulian Libanius Eunapius and others were you shall never finde the detraction of servants obedience obiected to Christians And certainly if in all antiquity no history be found to record it no father to perswade it no enemy toobiect it it may well seeme evident that this doctrine of seruants withdrawing obedience from their masters for worke on the Lords day was neither taught nor practised in the ancient Church And therefore S r to draw to an end for I grow weary haue already both dulled my penne and my selfe I would advise you in the name of Iesus Christ whose Minister you are whose worke you haue in hand to examine this doctrine of yours what foundation it may haue in the word of God what effect in the Church of God least the foundation happily be your owne phantasie not Gods word the effect proue the poysoning not the norishing of the church I know Sr you are not the first that set this doctrine abroach nor the only man that drawes of the vessell although few draw so freely as you But I would advise you sir in the name of God to beware betimes draw not too deepe It is all nought it relisheth already with them that haue good tasts like the water of Marah It will proue like that