The Doctrine of the Sabbath Vindicated, Chapter 10
CHAP. X. Breerwood. Pag. 13, 14.
WHereby may eaſily and clearely bee diſcerned the difference betwixt the equity and wiſdome of Almighty God in the conſtitution of the Law of the Sabaoth, obliging Parents, and Maſters and owners, for the children, and ſervants and cattell that are merely under their powers; and the raſhneſſe and iniquity of wretched men interpreting the law as immediatly and directly obliging the children and ſervants themſelves: 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 themſelves, or to their maſters in whoſe power they are? Servants are not homines juris ſut nor operum ſuorum domini, as Lawyers ſpeake▪ they are but their maſters living inſtruments foreign, as Ariſtotle tearmeth them, they have no right or power to diſpoſe of themſelves, they cannot play and worke at their owne pleaſure (for this is the condition of freemen, not of ſervants) but are meerely and intirely for bodily labour and ſervice under the power and commandement of their maſters, and under their power for ſervice onelyonly: in ſuch ſort as they can neither juſtly performe any labour, which their maſters forbid, nor omit any which their Maſters command, but are under their inforcement, and puniſhment alſo if they diſobey. This I ſay is the property and obligation of a ſervant, and that by the law of nations, which alloweth, and ever hath done, Maſters over their ſervants (as the law of nature doth Parents over their children) not only a directive, but a corrective and coactive power: So then I pray you (tell me) whether the commandement touching the Sabaoth was not of common reaſon, rather to be impoſed on them which were at liberty, and had power to obey it, than on them which were utterly void and deſtitute of that power, and liberty? Whether in ſuch a caſe it were not more reaſonable to enjoyne the maſters that they ſhould not command, than injoyne the ſervants not to obey? for the poore ſervants, if their maſters command them, could not chuſe but worke, the law of nations bound them unto it, which had put them under their maſters power, and inforcement: but the maſters might forbeare to command, there was no law, that bound them to that, or injoyned them to exact ought of their ſervants.
Anſwer.
Firſt, here begin your reaſons; the firſt whereof is taken from the equitie and wiſedome of God: and it ſtands thus in briefe; It was more equity and wiſedome to impoſe the commandement on maſters for their ſervants and children, rather than on the children and ſervants themſelves, who are under their maſters power and inforcement. Therfore what? You leave us to gather up the concluſion, for you may bee aſhamed indeed of the conſequence, which is this; Therefore it is againſt Gods wiſedome and equitie to impoſe it on ſervants and children alſo: it is more wiſedome and equity to doe the one, you ſay, is it therefore againſt wiſedome and equitie to doe the other alſo? If the firſt be more equall and wiſe, the ſecond joyned to the firſt, is of equitie and wiſedome, and no raſhneſſe nor iniquitie, as you laviſhly terme it. It is given to maſters for their ſervants, you ſay, and rightly, is it therefore not intended to oblige ſervants alſo? Wee grant, it is more equity and wiſedome to impoſe it chiefly on maſters, that they inſnare not the ſervants, and that they provide that the worſhip of God and his religion may bee kept a foot in the family, and all attend on God in the aſſemblies; inſomuch that God will require of them, and the Church alſo, thoſe that are under their charge: and not chiefly on the ſervants who have no authority over others, but are under the authority of another: but this hindreth not the impoſing hereof on the ſervant alſo, who ſhall anſwer for his owne ſoule to God, and cannot bee excuſed by the command of his maſter.
Secondly, but in your diſcourſe divers things ſuffer exception as moſt unſound, as; Firſt, that they are meerely under their maſters power; this confuted before in Chap. 5.
Secondly, that they are under their power for ſervice onelyonly: which is moſt falſe; for in this fourth Commandement they are put under their power directive and coactive for duties of Religion. And this your poſition overthrowes the power of Princes over their ſubjects in matters of Religion. A wicked doctrine.
Thirdly, that they cannot juſtly performe any labour their maſters forbid. They may in caſe the maſters life or livelihood be in manifeſt hazzard, by obeying the maſters prohibition, as in Abigaïls caſe o1 Sam. 25. 18, 19.. They may lift their neighbor out of a pit, or ſave him from ſome imminent danger or loſſe, though the maſter ſhould forbid it.
Fourthly, that they may not omit any labour which their maſters command. They may omit the labour which will manifeſtly creeple them, and ought to doe it by vertue of the ſixth Commandement, Thou ſhalt not kill. And ſo that phraſe of yours in pag. 9. l. 7. (overſet with ſixe dayes toyle) if ſpoken as a thing lawfull on the maſters part to overſet his ſervant, is ſinfull. Againe, they may omit the labour that is againſt the commandement of an higher power, as Thomas Aquinas ſheweth in his Summes 22a. q. 104. art. 5.
Fiftly, that ſervants are vtterly void of power and liberty to obey the commandement of God, in reſting on the Sabbath when their maſter bids them worke.
This is manifeſtly falſe: for,
Firſt, if they are not void of liberty to refuſe workes that will creeple them on any day, then much leſſe are they not void of liberty to refuſe ſuch workes on that day. They are not void of liberty to refuſe ſuch unceſſant imployments as will not give them leave to take breath, in as much as that will kill them. Now to worke the ſeventh day too, is to have no time to take breath, as the phraſe is in Exod. 23. 12. That the ſonne of thy hand-maid and the ſtranger may take breath. And ſo in the other caſes forementioned.
Secondly, they have power to refuſe a thing unlawfull: but the ſervants worke that day is a thing unlawfull: for it is forbidden, as your ſelfe acknowledges.
Thirdly, they are here for this day reſtored to freedom, by this that the Lord commands the maſter not to work them.
Fourthly, they have no power to ſell themſelves from Gods ſolemne worſhip and ſervice, and ſuch a bargaine is void, if it were made, ipſo facto, nor did ever the Law of nations ſo bind the ſervant to his maſter, and make him ſo to be his maſters.
Fifthly, if the maſter bid the ſervant do any thing which is either contrary to piety, or repugnant to a ſervants duty, he is not bound to obey pSi herus jubeat ſervum aliquid facere, quod aut pietati contrarium, aut à ſervili officio alienum ſit, non tenetur parere; quia dominus non debuit talia imperare: rectè igitur Hieronymꝰ hanc exceptionem appoſuit, per omnia; nimirum, (inquit ille) in quibus dominus carnis, Domino ſpiritus contraria non imperat. Davenant in Col. c. 3. v. 2…., becauſe the maſter ought not to command ſuch things. Rightly therefore S. Hierom annexed this exception to the Apoſtles (In all things) to wit (ſaith hee) in which the maſter according to the fleſh, doth not command things contrary to the maſter of our ſpirit. Now theſe commands of the maſter are of this nature, and where the maſter ought not to command, the ſervant is not bound to obey; the maſter here, you confeſſe, ought not to command, then the ſervant is not bound to obey; and thus, being a freeman, by your former doctrine the commandement is in force upon him, and hee ſinneth, if he worke at his maſters command this day.
Thirdly, and as theſe grounds are wicked, which you interlace your argument withall, and therefore do not ſtrengthen, but weaken your reaſon, ſo where your ground is good, your conſequence is naught. This is indeed true which you ſay, that the maſter hath over his ſervant a coactive and corrective power. But what a miſerable conſequence is this? Maſters have a coactive power; therfore there is no wiſdom, juſtice or equitie in the Almighty to give a cōmandement to a ſervant in obeying whereof he is lyable to the ſtripes of a wicked maſter. Nay, God requires ſervants to undergoe wrongfull buffetings patiently, 1 Pet. 2. 18, 19. and yet hee is wiſe, and juſt, and equall in ſo doing.