The Doctrine of the Sabbath Vindicated, Chapter 12 – Chapter 13
CHAP. 12. Breerwood. Pag. 15, 16, 17.
ANd was it not alſo to his goodneſſe, and compaſſion? For ſay that the commandement touching ſervants vacation was given to themſelves, not to their Maſters, ſhould not thereby poore ſervants (to whom every where elſe the law of God appeareth milde and pittifull) be intangled with inextricable perplexity? For ſuppoſe his maſter injoyne him ſome worke on the Sabaoth day (covetous maſters may ſoone doe it) eſpecially if they thinke that precept touching their ſervants ceſſation, not to touch them) or elſe they may bee ignorant of the law of God, (as Chriſtians and Jewes may happily ſerve Pagans) Admit I ſay ſome Maſter commands his ſervant to work on the Sabaoth, what ſhould the ſervant doe, ſhould he worke? God hath forbidden him; ſhould he not worke? His maſter hath commanded him: for the law of God is ſet at ſtrife with the law of nations, and that poore ſervant like the Sailor betweene Sylla and Charybdit, ſtandeth perplexed and afflicted in the midſt betweene ſtripes and ſinne: for he muſt of neceſſity either diſobey Gods commandement, which is ſinne; or his Maſters, which is attended with ſtripes. Beſides it is abſurd that the law of God, ſhould reſtraine the ſervant from obeying his Maſter, and yet not reſtraine the Maſter from commanding his ſervant unlawfull things: As it is alſo another abſurdity that that day which by the law given was manifeſtly intended to bring ſervants releaſe, and remiſſion of their weekely toile; ſhould by the decree of the law it ſelfe above all other daies breede their greateſt perplexities: foraſmuch as above all other daies (if their Maſters be not men that feare God) enforced they are (there is no avoidance) to venter either on ſinne or ſtripes, for either God muſt be diſobeyed, and ſinne cleaveth to their ſoules, or their Maſters; and ſtripes light upon their bodies, either they muſt obey God, and be plagued by men; or obey men, and be condemned by God: you will ſay, it is better to obey God than men; and worſe to diſobey him that can caſt both body and ſoule into hell, than him that can only for a time afflict the body: true, who doubts it? But that is not the point I ſtand upon; the point is how it agreeth with the tender goodneſſe, and compaſſion of Almighty God towards poore ſervants (whoſe condition is yet honeſt and lawfull) to plunge them into ſuch perplexities, as namely to impoſe on them a commandement, which they can neither keepe nor breake without a miſchiefe and inconvenience; neither keepe as the ſervants of men, nor breake as they are the ſervants of God: neither keepe without ſharpe puniſhment; nor breake without heavy ſinne: all which intanglement of ſervants, and calumniation againſt both the juſtice and mercy of God, is clearly avoided, if the commandement be given (as the tenour of it doth ſimply import) to the Maſters, and not to the ſervants; which I have ſufficiently proved, both by the evidence of holy ſcripture, ſo to have beene, and by evidence and inforcement of reaſon, that it ſhould be ſo.
Anſwer.
Firſt, here I have to ſay againſt both the manner and the maine of your arguing: For the manner; firſt, you play the Sophiſter egregiouſly, the queſtion is, whether it be given onelyonly to maſters, and not to ſervants? And you take the riſe of your reaſoning from hence, that the commandement (according to our opinion) is given to ſervants only, and not to maſters; and therefore you talke (that you might put a gloſſe upon your reaſoning, and make the contrary appeare the more foule, of the commandement of the ſervants ceſſation, not touching the maſter. The commandement given to themſelves, not to their maſters? This is meere cavilling: for who ever thought or dreamt, ſave your ſelfe, much leſſe held, that the commandement was not given to their maſters, though it were given to the ſervants alſo. Againe, you ſeeme to promiſe the ſervant liberty, but indeed make him the bond-ſlave to his maſters unlawfull commands: and while you would free him from blowes of an injurious maſter, you free him (if it may bee called freedome) from the ſervice of God, which is perfect freedome.
Secondly, for the maine of your reaſon, it is thus: to give the commandement to ſervants alſo, is againſt the goodneſſe of God; for it caſts the ſervant upon ſtripes or ſinne: I anſwer: Doth the commandement caſt any upon ſinne? If it any way provoke, or revive ſinne, it is by accident, becauſe a ſpirituall, juſt, and good Law meets with a carnall heart, ſold under ſinne aRom. 7. 11, 12.. Sinne taketh occaſion by the commandement the commandement doth not cauſe ſinne. Had you had Pauls ſpirit, you would have juſtified the Law, and laid load upon the fleſh and corrupt nature as out of meaſure ſinfull, and have adviſed all youth to cleanſe their wayes by taking heed thereto according to Gods word bPſal. 119. 9.: and not goe about to fill greene heads with crotchets. Yea, but if they ſinne not, but obey, ſtripes attend them, and this is againſt the mercy of God. Indeed? Is this your ſtumbling blocke? It is then againſt his goodneſſe that Hagar cGen. 16. 6, 9.ſhould returne to her Miſtris and ſubmit her ſelfe. It is againſt his pitty, that the Apoſtle from Gods ſpirit ſhould require ſervants to ſuffer buffetings that come undeſerved, 1 Pet. 2. 19. It is againſt goodneſſe to be happy; for bleſſed are yee (ſaith Chriſt) when ye ſuffer deſpightfull uſage for righteouſneſſe ſake dMat. 5. 11, 12.. It is againſt goodneſſe, that any man ſhould be, or doe good, inaſmuch as ſome wicked men will perſecute a man for that good. Why ſhould the pitifull God require that which will caſt us on the wheele, greediron, racke, fire and faggot, and what not that is of torment and torture? Oh diveliſh, earthly and ſenſuall reaſoning. This is farre from our Saviours Doctrine and Spirit, the King of Sion, meeke and having ſalvation, who bids us eLuk. 14. 26, 27,take up our croſſe daily, and hate father and mother, and our owne lives, as ever we meane to be worthy of him, and find life to life eternall. Such ſufferings are to Gods glory, and to our glory. Our Saviour premeditating of his ſufferings, ſaid, Father, glorifie thy Name; that is, ſaith Chryſoſtome fforeign. Chryſoſt. in Ioh. 12. 28., Leade me now to the Croſſe: the Croſſe he calleth, glory, ſaith Ammonius gforeign. Ammonius.. Glorifie thy ſonne; that is, doe not forbid him now haſtening to death, aſſent to thy ſonne herein for the profit of all, ſaith Cyrill hforeign. Cyril. in Ioh.. We have an excellent Chapter in Lactantius his Inſtitutions anſwering this ſe…ſuall argument upon another occaſion, for the povertie and afflictions and unjuſt perſecutions of the Church, and the proſperity of Idolaters and Heathen might ſeeme to proove the worſhip of God to bee vaine, and the Rites of gods or idols to be true, becauſe their worſhippers enjoyed page missing brought. Therefore that Starre in the firmament of your reaſoning (whoſe condition is yet honeſt and lawfull) ſhooteth and falleth.
Yea, but you ſay, the point you ſtand on, is not, how much better it is to obey God than man, but how the command, requiring obedience in a thing that will caſt us into the hands of wicked men, can ſtand with the goodneſſe of God. This is the point that all this while I have handled: reade and ſee how.
Fourthly, and for a recompence, when you talke ſo freely of miſchiefes and inconveniences, free your Doctrine of them if you can. For if the ſervant muſt obey his maſters unlawfull commands of worke on that day, I ſay, hee cannot doe it, but he falleth into miſchiefe; for he is ſold from Gods ſervice and the Covenant of God, (pEſay 56. 6. Every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, taketh hold of Gods Covenant) if a maſter be wicked; and into inconvenience, for he hath no breathing time: he cannot leave it undone, but hee falleth into ſtripes and ſinne at once, without any ſupport from God or man.
Therefore your Concluſion, that all is avoided by this your dreame is moſt untrue, neither Scripture nor reaſon favoureth your opinion, and in this you ſuffer the juſt reproofe of q2 Pet. 2. 12. Iude 8.Peter and Iude, you are one of the filthy dreamers. Lactantius ſaith of Plato, that becauſe hee talked much of one God that made the world, but nothing of Religion and his worſhip, that hee dreamed, and knew not God rSomniaverat enim Deum non cognoverat. Lact. Inſtit. l. 5. c. 15.. How much more doe you dreame and know not God that talke of him to evert his worſhip?
CHAP. XIII. Breerwood. Pag. 17, 18, 19.
ANd doth not the practice of holy governours regiſtred in the Scriptures, declare, that they had the ſame underſtanding of the commandement? Nehemiah, when he ſaw among the Jewes at Jeruſalem the Sabaoth prophaned with treading of wine-preſſes, carrying of burthens, buying and ſelling, whom reproveth hee for it? The ſervants by whoſe imployment and labour theſe things were done, and the Sabaoth defiled? No, but them under whoſe power the ſervants were, the rulers of Iudah; and what rulers? the Magiſtrates only? No ſuch matter; but the freemen of Iudah, that is to ſay, the Maſters of thoſe Servants: for ſuch (namely freemen) the word foreign there uſed doth properly import, not only the Magiſtrates or Rulers of the commonwealth, for the Septuagint which (being themſelves Iewes) I hold, beſt knew the property of their owne language; tranſlate foreign by the greeke word▪ foreign, which word is properly and directly oppoſed to ſervants: and every where almoſt in the old Teſtament where the hebrew word foreign is found (which is knowne, to ſignifie a freeman) and is tranſlated in the greeke foreign, it is in the Chaldee foreign which is manifeſtly known to be the ſame with the hebrew foreign, but farre more uſuall in the Chaldee tongue. They were the freemen of Iudah then, that by Nehemiah were called to account, and reprooved for the prophanation of the Sabaoth by thoſe ſervilo labours which (no queſtion) had beene executed by their ſervants; but if the ſervants by thoſe labours, had themſelves tranſgreſſed the commandement: had he not done hoth juſtly, to have made them partakers of the reproofe, who had been partakers of the ſinne, (ſeeing the commandement of God lay equall on both) and wiſely too; that if hee could not reſtraine the maſters from commanding, yet hee might reſtraine the ſervants from obeying, and ſo have two ſtrings to his bow? This Nehemiah did not (who underſtood 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 juſtly and wiſely: for had he done more wiſely thinke you to rebuke ſervants for not reſting on the Sabaoth, that would have reſted with al their hearts, if they had not beene conſtrained to worke? Or had hee done more juſtly to exact that of the ſervants, which (for ought that appeareth) the commandement of God exacted not from them? page missing 10. 14. foreign, rendred thus by our Tranſlators; Bleſſed art thou, O Land, when thy King is the ſonne of Nobles: which in truth cannot be underſtood of freemen, but of men nobly deſcended and educated. All things conſidered, I queſtion much, whether in the old Teſtament there be any thing to force us to underſtand it at all of freemen, as oppoſed to ſervants. But if it were ſo that the word had ſuch a ſignification, yet ſeeing it is neither the onelyonly, nor the proper ſignification of the word, it muſt of neceſſitie in that place of Nehemiah not be taken in your large ſenſe, but in that true and reſtrained ſenſe, for chiefe Rulers and Princes, that had authoritie over houſholders and others that kept ſervants.