The Period of the Persian Monarchy, Chapter 19
CHAP. XIX.
A word of the Argument, and then more at large of the proofe of the Argument. Say, the word did signifie Masters (which it doth not;) yet I deny the Argument: He contested with the Masters; therefore the Masters onelyonly were in fault. And the reason why I deny it; because I find it granted, that the servants would have rested with thankes, if they had not beene constrained to worke. What needs then to urge the servants to doe that, which of themselves they would faine doe? The Masters were chiefe in fault: therefore hee contests with them. The Masters had in their power to reforme all: therefore Nehemiah, like a wise and just Prince deales with them. Hee was a Magistrate, and his businesse being not for correction of what was done, but for reformation, that they might doe so no more; whom in reason should hee speake unto, but the Superiours? mend them, mend all. The servants would come in of themselves: if they would not, the Masters had power to force them to it whether they would or not. Mee thinkes then, it is an argument to be pitied, to fall from the penne of any learned man, and from this to conclude, That the Servants did not sinne, because in that sabbaticall reformation Nehemiah did contest with the Masters, and not with them by name. But what if wee prove out of this very Chapter, That Nehemiah did contest with all, Servants and all? Looke but into the 15. verse, and there wee reade, that Nehemiah saw some treading wine-presses on the Sabbath day (and these are confessed to be Servants) and bringing in sheaves, and lading Asses, as also wine, grapes, and figges, and all manner of burdens which they brought into Ierusalem on the Sabbath day. All these, or the most of these, I am sure, were Servants: For who used to beare burdens, but the Servants? And were not these in fault? Else, why did Nehemiah contest with them? Hee was to deale wisely and justly. The Text saith, That hee testified against them: and therefore not onelyonly the worke was done by them; but a yThere was not only Voluntas facti, sed peccati.sinne was committed by them. As good an Argument as the former might have arose to inferre, That onelyonly Servants were in the sinne, because he testified againsts the Servants, and not the Masters by name. But the thing wee looke is not to be denied: and that is, Because here, ver. 15. Nehemiah testified against the Servants that did beare burdens, that therefore They did sinne. For wee have it confessed, that they would not have troden the wine-presses, nor carried the burdens, except their Masters had commanded them. And therefore, albeit their Masters did charge them to doe it: just and wise Nehemiah did testifie against those Servants, for those workes on the Sabbath day; which workes they did in obedience to their Masters. And out of this, hee that hath halfe an eye may see, that the Servants did sinne. Hee did look besides the Booke then, who did and durst write, That Nehemiah did not reprove the Servants, by whose employment and labour these things were done: For, the Text is expresse, That Nehemiah did testifie first against them; The Servants that did tread the Presses, and beare the Burdens, ver. 15. and then the Nobles, ver. 17.
Once more from the very Text in hand, I prove That Servants, as servants, were in the same sinne with their Masters; though not in the same point and degree of sinning. I say in the sinne as sinne, to shut out all cavill. For 'tis a very riddle to mee in a matter so expresse and evident, a servant should concurre to the fact, and not to the fault. I meane so farre as to make them guilty as well as the master, though not so much as the Master. Thus I argue.
Those, whom Nehemiah did contest against, ver. 21. were in a sinne (else hee dealt, nor justly, nor wisely to contend with them.)
But besides the Merchants, those were sellers of all kinds of ware: I thinke, the most of them, I am sure many, were servants. For who be they that in all trades, places, markets, faires, sell? What? Not the servants as well as the Master? Therefore they did sinne.
Againe, Those whom Nehemiah threatned to lay hands on, were in a sinne in Nehemiah's opinion; else neither his wisedome, nor justice would, that hee should lay them up. But hee sayd, hee would lay hands on the sellers of all kinds of ware, who lodged about the Walls of Ierusalem. And amongst these sellers, there must needs be many servants. Neither doth Nehemiah threaten some, but all (indefinitely) the Sellers: for sellers of all kindes of ware, is all one with all sellers of wares. The termes are aequipollent: And therefore servants were in fault.
Now how poore and weake this kinde of disputing is, wee will shew out of Nehemiah 5. v. 7. There Nehemiah is said to rebuke the zforeignNobles and aforeignRulers, for that they did exact vsury of their Brethren. The word englished Nobles is by the Septuagint (who being Iewes, are sayd to know best the sense of their owne Language) I say, the word is by them translated foreign [men of renowne] and it must meane such, because in order they are before Magistrates. Well then; Can any man once imagine, that men of fame and renowne onelyonly did put their money to hire? And yet we see Nehemiah then and there is sayd to contest with the Nobles and Rulers onelyonly by name. Is it not now a simple piece of Logicke, thus to argue? Nehemiah contested with the Nobles and Rulers onelyonly for Vsury: therefore Vsury was a finne onelyonly in Nobles and Rulers; or that none were Vsurers then but the Nobles and Rulers.
Doe but read Nehemiah 13.10. and there we find the portions of the Levites had not beene given them. By whom? By the bVatablus in locum.Israelites: They, to save their purses brought in nothing. Whom doth Nehemiah reprove? The words bee vers. 11. that hee contended with the ci. e foreign Rulers. The proper sense of the word, is a Ruler in Heb. & in the Chaldee also. as foreign Dan. 2.48. & foreign Dan. 3.2. A Governour, and nothing but a Governour foreign Princep… Magnus: A Great Prince. Pag…ine.Rulers. Did none refuse to pay their portions but the Rulers? Yes, the whole body of the people: The corruption was generall. The Levites and the Singers were made to fight so low, that they were fled: the exigent was such, that they must flye or famish. Which could not have beene, if none had beene delinquents but the Rulers. Hee that runnes may read this to be so, vers. 12. Then brought all Iudah (viz. after Nehemiah had made the reformation) marke, [All Iudah] then brought the tith of the corne: And therefore all Iudah sinned in not bringing the Portions of the Levites and Singers. [All Iudah.] Out of the text it selfe I prove, that such a conclusion as this holds not. Nehemiah reproved the Rulers onelyonly; therefore the Rulers onelyonly were in transgression: For the words, as they lye, shew us that all Iudah offended: And yet Nehemiah cals onelyonly the Magistrates to coram: And why? they had power in their hands to reforme this in all. So here he contended with the Nobles. I say then, as the truth is, that Nehemiah dealt onelyonly with the great Ones, because they were chiefe in the sinne to suffer it; and it was in their power and place to reforme it: That so he and they joyning together to bring about the full reformation, the Lord might have his Sabbaths againe. Having cleered, as I take it, the weaknesse of the Argument, wee are now to shew, that the proofe is of no force.