The doctrine of the Sabbath vindicated in a confutation of a treatise of the Sabbath, written by M. Edward Breerwood against M. Nic. Byfield, wherein these five things are maintained: first, that the fourth Commandement is given to the servant and not to the master onely. Seecondly, that the fourth Commandement is morall. Thirdly, that our owne light workes as well as gainefull and toilesome are forbidden on the Sabbath. Fourthly, that the Lords day is of divine institution. Fifthly, that the Sabbath was instituted from the beginning. By the industrie of an unworthy labourer in Gods vineyard, Richard Byfield, pastor in Long Ditton in Surrey.

Answer.

First, I might put off all this still, because it is upon this false ground that the Commandement of God doth not en∣joyne our Sabbath with the like. But I willingly goe on with you, to see if there bee one true stitch through your whole Discourse. And here before wee come to particu∣lars h, let all note, that that odious terme and calumniating phrase of Servants rebellion against their masters is your owne, and commeth from an evill heart, and crafty head. We teach, that Princes unlawfull commands are not to bee executed; yet we teach not, that any so commanded must re∣bell, but not obey, and be so farre from rebellion if it should be urged, that hee suffer even to blood patiently, without so much as reviling, judging, or the like, but onely committing his cause to him that judgeth righteously. But to come to your matter you hold: First,

That the Churches Constitutions, and the Edicts of Princes never intended to forbid light and labourlesse worke, nor doe their censures take hold on men therefore.

Secondly, against this, what the Doctrine of our Church is, you heard before, which taught, that God condemned all weekely and worke-day labour, all common businesse, and to give themselves wholly to heavenly exercises, &c. The doctrine of the Church of Ireland i is consonant here∣unto, which teacheth thus; The first day of the weeke, which is the Lords day, is wholly to be dedicated to the ser∣vice of God: and therefore wee are bound therein to rest from our common and daily businesse; and to bestow that leasure upon holy exercises both publike and private.

In a Councell, k in the yeare 588. it was decreed, that no worke on the Lords day bee done, but the eyes and hands stretched out to God that whole day, and that if a Countrey man or servant should neglect this wholesome Law, he should bee beaten with more grievous strokes of

Clubbes. For these things, saith that Councell, pacifie God, and remoove the judgements of diseases and barren∣nesse. And againe, understanding while they sate in the Councell l, that some absented themselves from the Assem∣blies, they decreed under paine of Anathema, that on all Lords dayes all both men and women received the Com∣munion.

In another General Synod there was made this decree m: It is ordained, that the Lords in their severall dominions doe prohibit on the Lords dayes the yearely and weekely Faires, also meetings in Tavernes, Compotations (or Gossipings) Dice, Cards, and divers the like sports, singing in Concents (as now many in merry meetings have their singing of Cat∣ches and their roarings, as they are called) the use of musicall Instruments and Dancing.

In a Councell at Nice it was ordered, that those who ei∣ther kept Court, bought or sold, or otherwise prophaned the Sabbath, should bee prohibited the Communion, because that whole day we ought onely to rest, and spread abroad our hands-in prayer to God n.

Canutus o, a King in this Land before the Conquest, en∣acted in a Councell at Winchester, that Sunday should be kept holy, and Faires, Courts, Huntings, and worldly workes on that day should be forborne.

Guntramnus p, King of France commanded, that on the Lords day no bodily worke should be done, besides what was prepared to eate, to maintaine life conveniently.

Secondly, you affirme that neither constitution of the Church, nor edict of Princes, doe free servants from their Masters power to command them to worke, or their obe∣dience to worke at their Masters command that day more than others.

Thirdly, what the Doctrine of our Church is in this point, is cleare in the Homily of the place and time of prayer, delivered in these words; Sithence which time (mea∣ning the time of our Saviours ascension) Gods people hath alwayes in all ages, without any gaine-saying used to come to∣gether 〈2 pages missing〉〈2 pages missing〉

ken of? (which was the point of the Apostles doctrine I especially re∣membred you of) That God I say, which commanded, and that do∣ctrine which instructed servants to disobey their Masters, and by depriving them of their service caused their hindrance? The Apostle knew full well this was not the way to propagate the Gospell, and en∣large the kingdome, of Christ, he knew it was Christian meekenes and obedience, and humility, and patience that must doe it: and therefore hee commandeth Christian servants to give their masters all honour, to obey them in all things, and to please them in al things, that so their masters seeing them more serviceable and profitable ser∣vants, and withall more vertuous than others were, might sooner be drawne to like of the religion that made them such, whereas the con∣trary would have bin manifestly a scandall, and grievous impeach∣ment to the propagation of the Gospell, and defamed it, for a do∣ctrine of contumacy and disobedience, and for a seminary (as it were) of disturbance and sedition of families and common-wealths. And not onely alienated the affections of masters from their Christian servants: but inflamed all men with indignation and hatred against the Christian religion and the Professors of it. Such therefore▪ evi∣dently is the importance and intendment of the Apostles doctrine (as unpartiall men, whom prejudice or selfe conceipt leads not away, may soone discerne) very farre differing from this doctrine of yours. Touching which point of the Apostles instruction given to servants for this effectuall and generall obedience, you will not reply (I hope) as some have done; that at first indeede it was permitted for the good of the Church, lest the increase of it, and proceeding of the Gospell should be hindred by offence given to the Gentiles. For would that have beene permitted if it had beene unlawfull? Or could the Church of God bee increased by the sinnes of men? His Church increased by that whereby himselfe was dishonoured? Or would the Apostles have permitted men to sinne (as now Iesuites do) 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 bee, because either of both were a staine and derogation to the righteousnesse of God: the intention therefore of the Apostles was simple, without all trickes of policie to teach servants all exact and entire obedience to their masters, touching all workes that belong to the dutie of ser∣vants, namely that were in themselves honest and lawfull, without excepting of any day.

Notes

• h

  Though the Lawes of men should not take hold of servants in this case, yet the Lawes of God doe.
• i

  Articles of Religion in a Synod at Dub∣lin, 1615.
• k

  Concilium Matiscon. 2. c. 1.
• l

  C. 4.
• m

  Sancitum est, ut domini in suis ditionibus diebus domini∣cis prohibeant nundi••as annu∣as, & s••ptimana∣les, item conven∣ticula in Taber∣nis, compotatio∣nes, alearum, chartarum & similes varios lusus, concentus, musicorum in∣strumentorum usum, atque choreas. Synod. general. Petri∣coviensis. Anno 1578.
• n

  Toto hoc die tantummodò vacandum, quia toto hoc die ma∣nus Deo expan∣dendae.
• o

  Canutus lege 14. 15.
• p

  Praeceptio Guntramni ad Episcop. dat. in Concil. Matis∣con. 2.