this doctrine or the mischiefes that may ensue of it in the cōmonwealth I will not meddle I will not censure the one nor divine of the other you are a teacher of Gods word within the compas of that word I will stay with you and by it examine with your patience whether this frame of your doctrine be grounded on the rocke or on the sand on the firme rocke of Gods law or on the fickle sand of your owne fantasie misunderstanding the law and so whether it tend to the edification or ruine of the Church For touching the commanding of the Sabaoth vpon which I averre this doctrine of yours cannot be grounded lay it before you and consider it well And tell me to whom is the charge of seruants ceasing from worke on the Saboath day giuen Is it to the seruants themselues or to their Masters It is giuen of seruants I confesse their worke is the matter of the commandement But I demand whether it be giuen imposed to the seruants themselues or to the Masters whose seruants they are For if the commandement be not giuen to them then doe not they transgresse the commandements if by their Masters they be set to worke but the Masters to whom the law was giuen that the seruant should not worke consequently the sinne is their Masters and not theirs so if the law be not imposed to them then it requireth no obedience of them It obligeth them not therefore is neither the transgression of it any sinne to them but only to those to whom it was giuen as a law For the better cleering of which point let me aske you a question or two of other commandements that for their forme are paralell to this and whereof you haue no preiudice God commanded the Israelites that no stranger should eate of the paschall lambe againe that no Ammonite nor Moabite should enter into the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation Good Sit tell me did the stranger sinne if hee eat of the passeouer being supposed invited Or did the Ammonites or Moabites sin if they came into the congregation being admitted Did the stranger I say and the Ammonites and the Moabites in these cases sin of whom the commandements were giuen or the Israelites to whom the commandements were giuen touching them no but it is clearely the Lords meaning that the Israelites should not admit of any gentile to the participation of the Passeouer nor receiue the Ammonites and Moabites into the congregation of the Lord Let me aske you one question more of a case that hath fallen in my remembrance A precept comes out from the Prince That every Cittizen in London shall on such a day keepe his seruants within doores and not suffer them to goe a broad If not withstanding that precept some Master sends forth his seruant about his businesse doth the seruant transgresse the Princes commandement by obeying his masters Or ought he by pretence of that precept to disobey his Master and neglect his charge It is plaine he doth the former and therefore he ought not to doe the latter For the commandement was giuen to his master not to him and the purpose of it was to restraine his Master from commanding such seruice and not to restraine the seruant from obeying his Master if it were commanded there it is apparent that the obligations of commandements pertaineth to them to whom they are prescribed as rules and not to them of whom only as being the matter of the precept they are prescribed Now that that clause of the Commandement touching seruants was not giuen to the seruants them selues but to their Masters in whose power and disposition they are the text and tenour of the commandement doth clearly import for marke it well and answere me to whom is this speech directed Neither thy sonne nor thy daughter shall doe any worke on the Sabaoth day is it not to the Parents For can this manner of speech thy sonne thy daughter be rightly directed to any other then the parent and is not by the same reason the clause that next followeth neither shall thy man seruant nor thy maid-seruant doe any worke on the Sabaoth day directed to the Masters of such seruants Seeing that phrase of speech thy man seruant thy maidseruant cannot rightly be vsed to any other It is therefore as cleare as the Sunne euen to meane vnderstandings if they will giue but meane attendance to the tenour of Gods commandements rather then the fond interpretations and deprauations of men that that clause of the commandement touching seruants cessation from working on the Sabaoth is not giuen to seruants themselues but to their Masters concerning them Or if to any darke vnderstanding which some grosse cloud may ouershadow this seeme not cleere enough the declaration yet of Moses himselfe touching the commandement will make it so of Moses I say who can neither be suspected of ignorance as hauing beene with the Lord 40 daies together in the Mountaine when he receiued the tables of the commandements with whō the Lord talked familiarly as a man doth with his friend nor yet of corruption as being by the Lords mouth pronounced faithfull in all his house he therefore in the 5 of Deuter. 14. which is only the place of Scripture besides the 20 of Exodus where all the branches of that commandement are repeated after the seuerall prohibitions touching the workes of sonnes seruants cattell c. addeth this Epiphonema That thy man servant and thy maidseruant may rest as well as thou It is to this thou therefore to whom this charge is directed that the seruants should rest vpon the Sabaoth who can be conceiued to be no other then the master of those seruants which yet moreouer the reason of that commandement touching seruants rest immediatly added will better cleare from all exception for remember saith Moses that thy selfe wast a seruant in the land of Aegypt and the Lord thy God brought thee out thence with a mighty hand and an out stretched arme Therefore the Lord thy God hath commanded thee to make a day of rest for to whom was that spoken remember that thy selfe wast a seruant in the land of Aegypt but to them that had beene servants and now were not seruants Or to what intent and purpose is that remember brought in remember that thy selfe wast a seruant but to moue compassion in them towards their owne servants and allow them a time of rest hauing themselues felt the burthen and affliction of seruants in Aegypt and remembring how glad they would haue beene of some remission but if the commandement of rest had beene directly and immediatly giuen to seruants themselues what needed any perswasion to that effect Would not seruants over set and wearied with six daies toile be of themselues glad to rest on the seauenth Or would they be so hot set on worke whereby yet they gained nothing but their labour for their paines and the profit being another mans
that the commandement of God could not restraine them but they needed also to be perswaded Or if perswasion had beene needful were this a convenient perswasion to vse to seruants Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Aegypt which euen now when they were out the land of Aegypt were seruants And to proceede with the text what other importance hath that other reason which immediatly followeth And remember that the Lord thy God hath brought thee thence out of Aegypt with a mighty hand and out-stretched arme Therefore the Lord thy God hath commanded thee to make a day of rest Hath it any other but to declare that the Lord who had redeemed them from their continuall slaueries hath iust title right to impose on them the commandement of the Sabaoth for their servants rest importing as much as if he had said although of thy selfe thou shouldest haue compassion of thy seruant and allow him rest Remembring that thy selfe wast a seruant in the land of Aegypt yet art thou more effectually obliged to doe it because the Lord hath commanded thee The Lord that brought thee out of thraldome and vncessant labours in Aegypt and therefore hath reason to command one daies rest in a weekes revolution Thee that by his redeeming hand art set at liberty from that labour and seruitude Where marke againe that the Lord is said to haue commanded them who a little before were said to be seruants in Aegypt and by his goodnesse were freed from that slauery which reason could not be intended or directed to them which still remained in servitude It is cleare therefore that all this perswasion of Moses for servants resting on the Sabaoth was not directed to the seruants themselues who to take their ease on the Sabaoth needed neither to be commanded nor intreated licence would serue their turne but to the Masters whose desire of gaine by the seruants labour might stand betwixt the Sabaoth and the seruants rest and to make an end with the text with the last wordes of it what is it that the Lord for these reasons commanded was it barely to keepe obserue the Sabaoth as it is in the vulgar English Latine and Greeke translations No they are all short it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to make a day of rest Now to make it to be so importeth not only to obserue it himselfe but to cause others also to obserue it which is euidently the property of Masters and gouernors wherefore seeing both the commandement touching seruants rest from labour on the Sabaoth day and reasons added by Moses to perswade that point and draw their mindes to obsequiousnesse are evidently directed to the Masters and not neither of both to the seruants themselues I take it out of all question as cleare as the Sunshine at midday that if seruants by their Masters command doe any worke on the Sabaoth the sinne is not theirs who as touching their bodily labour are meerely subiect to their Masters power but it is their Masters sin for their sin it is that transgres the law They transgresse the law who are obliged by it they are obliged by it to whom it was giuen and imposed and giuen it was as I haue plentifully proued only to Masters Or if notwithstanding all these euidences you will still contend that the prohibition touching bodily labour on the Sabaoth is directly imposed on the seruants themselues see whether you bring not the Oxe and the Asse and other cattle also vnder the obligation of this commandement whose worke is immediatly after that of seruants prohibited and precisely vnder the same forme of words whose labours yet on the Sabaoth I hope you will not say to be in them sinnes and transgressions of Gods law But as the labour of the beast is the sinne and transgression of the Master to whom the commandement of the beasts resting from labour wasgiuen so is the labour of the seruant also which by the Masters commandment he executed on that day as being touching bodily seruice incident to mankinde in like degree of subiection the Masters sinne and not the seruants For distinction must be made betweene the matter and the forme if to speake in schoolemens stile offend you not that is betweene the act and the guilt of sinne of which in this case the act indeede wherewith the commandement of the Sabaoth is violated is the servants but the crime and guiltinesse is the Masters that sets him on worke for seeing sin formally taken is nothing else but the transgression of the law or vnlawfulnesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle tearmeth it most properly exactly even as guiltines is the obligation to punishment for that transgression it appeareth manifestly that his is the guiltinesse whose the transgression is and his the transgression to whom the law was prescribed as a rule that is the Masters to whom it is not only imposed that he himselfe should doe no worke on that day as a particular man in the first clause Thou shalt doe no worke but also that none of his should doe any as he is the Father or Master of a family in those clauses that follow Neither shall thy sonne nor thy daughter nor manseruant nor maid-servant c. which latter point touching his keeping of the Sabaoth viz. as the gouernour of his house had not beene so well provided for and regulated by the law of God if these clauses of children and seruants abstinence from labour on the Sabaoth had beene giuen directly to themselues and not to their governours But you will reply perhaps that the commandement touching seruants rest on the Sabaoth is giuen to their Masters indeede but not only to them but to their seruants also No such matter for if it be let that appeare and set downe the clause wherein it is manifestly expressed or necessarily implied that seruants are forbidden all labour on the Sabaoth day as servants I say touching matter of service or labour imposed on them by their Masters for that in those workes which seruants doe on the Sabaoth day of themselues and not as proceeding from their Masters iniunction but from their owne election it is no question but they transgresse the commandement but those workes they doe not as seruants that is at anothers command but as in the condition of their seruice or favour of their Masters they retaine some degree of liberty and haue some disposition of themselues permitted vnto them so in that respect fall into the clause of free men viz. the first clause of the commandement Thou shalt doe no worke but to seruants as seruants in case they be commanded to worke which is our question there is no clause of the commandement imposed Whereby may easily and clearly be discerned the difference betwixt the equity wisdome of Almighty God in the constitution of the law of the Sabaoth obliging Parents and Masters and owners for the children seruants and cattle that
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
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
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
forbidden them that God hath indeede forbidden the Masters exacting that worke on the Sabaoth but he hath not forbidden the Servants execution of that worke if it demanded or exacted he hath restrained the Master from commanding it but he hath not restrained the seruants from obeying if it be commanded for although I acknowledge the servants worke on the Sabaoth to imply sinne yet I say it is not the servants fault And albeit I confesse the commandement of God be transgressed and God disobeyed by such workes on the Sabaoth yet it is not the seruant that transgresseth the commandement it is not he that disobeyeth God For the question is not the passine sense whether God be displeased with these workes but of the actiue who displeaseth him The thing is confessed but the person is questioned Confessed that is that there is sinne committed in that worke but questioned whose sinne it is For worke hauing relation both to the Master and to the seruant to the Masters commanding and to the servants executing I affirme that the worke is sinfull only on the Masters part not on the seruants namely as it is an effect of the Masters command not as an effect of the seruants obedience And the case seemes cleare The matter whereabout the seruants labour is is the Masters So is the command that sets him to it So is the awe and feare that keepes him to it So is the profit that redoundeth of it And aboue all the commandements of God whereby that worke of the seruant is forbidden is giuen directly to the Master And in the seruant all is contrary It is not his owne worke It proceedeth not from his owne will His condition exacteth his obedience about labour and aboue all God commands of ceasing from labour belongeth not to him I meane not to him directly as the person to whom it is giuen but only as the subiect or matter whereof it is giuen for he is one of them indeede whose workes are forbidden but not of them to whom it is forbidden one of whom but not to whom the commandement was imposed But where the law was not imposed sinne cannot be imputed seeing sinne is nothing but the transgression of the law it is not therefore the servants but the Masters sinne But there is another obiection for admit the servants worke vpon the Sabaoth be the Masters sinne that imposeth it Is it not sinne to giue consent and furtherance to another mans sinne But this servants doe when they execute their Masters commandements and consequently it is vnlawfull so to yeeld lawfull therefore it is to resist and reiect such cōmandement I answere first touching the pointe of consenting that in such a worke is to be considered the substance and the quality that is the worke it selfe the sinfulnesse of it seruants may consent to it as it is their masters worke not as it is their Masters sinne for except these things be distinguished God himselfe can no more avoide the calumniation of being the author then poore servants of being the ministers of sinne for that God concurreth with euery man to every action whatsoeuer as touching the substance of the action is out of all question seeing both all power whence actions issue are derived from him and that no power can proceede into act without his present assistance and operation but yet to the crime the faultinesse the inordination the vnlawfulnesse of the action wherein the nature of sinne doth for malice consist he concurreth not But it wholly proceedeth from the infection of the concupiscence wherewith the faculties of the soule are originally defiled the actions themselues issuing from the powers and the sinfulnesse of the actions from the sinfulnesse of the powers like corrupt streames flowing from filthier springs It is not therefore euery concurrence of the servants with the Master to a sinfull action which causeth the staine and imputation of sinne vpon the servant as when he consenteth and concurreth only to the action not to the sinne namely likes and approues it as his masters worke yet vtterly dislikes it as it is his masters transgression likes of the worke for the obligation of obedience wherein touching worke he standeth to serue his Master and yet dislikes of the sinne for the great obligation wherein euery one standeth toward the honour of God But yet to answere secondly to the point of resisting the seruant ought not for any dislike or detestation of the annexed sinne to resist or reiect his Masters commandement touching the worke for in obeying he is at most but the minister of another mans sinne and that as they say per accidence namely as it is annexed to such a worke but in resisting he is directly the author of his owne sinne by withdrawing his obedience about bodily seruice from him that is his Lord according to the flesh euen that obedience wherein both by his owne covenant and the law of nations he standeth bound vnto him and that without any exception of the Sabaoth more then other daies And is it wisdome in a seruant to commit himselfe sinne to prevent his Masters sinne That is to offend God himselfe least another man should offend him no not so wee must not doe evill that good may come thereon especially doe evill our selues that anothers good may come of it rather wee must carry two eyes about vs that while wee looke with one to the end that is to the glory of God we looke with another to the means that they be lawfull and agreeable to the will of God and not dishonour him with our sinfull actions while we would honour him with our good intentions But yet one scruple remaineth because every person that did any worke on the Sabaoth day was by the law to be cut off from his people and to dye the death every person therefore the servant as well as the master I answere that the iudiciall commandement is to be vnderstood of the same persons to whom the morall commandement was giuen the commandement touching punishment of them to whom the commandement the offence was imposed but I prooued before that the morall commandement was not imposed to servants as seruants but to them that were at liberty All they therefore that did any worke on the Sabaoth were to dy the death by the Iudiciall law they I say that did it not they that were made to doe it which were as well passiue as actiue in doing of it namely they that did it of election as free that might obstaine from worke and would not not they that did it of iniunction and necessity as seruants that would abstaine from worke and might not whose condition was such that they would not worke by their masters direction might be made to worke by their masters compulsion for a hard case it were if poore servants to whom no commandement to cease from worke was giuen by God and yet might be compelled to worke by men should dye