Sabbatum Redivivum: OR THE Christian Sabbath VINDICATED; IN A Full Discourse concerning the Sabbath, And the LORDS DAY. Wherein, whatsoever hath been written of late for, or against the Christian Sabbath, is exactly, but modestly Examined: And the perpetuity of a Sabbath deduced, from grounds Of Nature, and Religious Reason. By Daniel Cawdrey, and Herbert Palmer: Members Of the Assembly of Divines. Divided into Four Parts. 1. Of the Decalogue in general, and other Laws of God, together with the Relation of Time to Religion. 2. Of the fourth Commandment of the Decalogue in special. 3. Of the old Sabbath, in particular. 4. Of the Lord's Day, in particular. The FIRST PART. Ezek. 22.26. They have hid their eyes from my Sabbaths, and I am profaned amongst them. Mark. 2.28. The SON OF MAN, is Lord also of the Sabbath. London, Printed by Robert White, for Thomas Vnderhill, and are to be sold at the Sign of the Bible in Woodstreet. 1645. The Licence. THis Treatise entitled (Sabbatum Redivivum, Or the Christian Sabbath vindicated) as in my opinion the most satisfactory of any I have seen, and that in a point of Divinity, wherein (as appears by the many Books written against it) the wisdom of the flesh maintains as great an enmity against God, as in any whatsoever; I recommend unto the Press, as of excellent use in these times. CHARLES HERLE. The Contents of the first Part. CHAP. I. OF the Term of a Moral Law, and the distinction of Laws, into Ceremonial, Judicial, and Moral: And of Moral Laws, into Natural and Positive. CHAP. II. Rules to know a Law to be Moral, though but positive. CHAP. III. Every Law of the Decalogue, is a Moral, and Perpetual Law. CHAP. IU. The Exceptions to the former Rule, answered. CHAP. V Christ hath confirmed all the Commandments of the Decalogue as perpetual, Mat. 5.17. etc. CHAP. VI Solemn Worship is Morall-Naturall; both Solitary and conjoined, in Families, and Churches, and how far. CHAP. VII. General Considerations about Time, and its profitableness, in reference to Moral actions of importance. CHAP. VIII. Considerations of Time in relation to Religion, and the Worship of God; how far it may be profitable thereunto. CHAP. IX. A Determinate Solemn Time, for God's Worship, is Morall-Naturall; and that in the first commandment: And what kind and manner of Determination of Time for Religion, may be proved Necessary, by the Law, or Light of Nature, and general Rules of Scripture. CHAP. X. The Determination of the chief Solemn Time of Worship for all men, Necessarily and Ordinarily Sufficient for the chief Time, as also of the particular day for it, belongs not to Men, but to GOD. CHAP. XI. Two Corollaries from the former Discourses, about Solemn Time. 1. All Times and Days are not equal, under the Gospel. 2. Time and Place are not equal circumstances in Religion. CHAP. XII. The Necessary sufficient chief Time for Religion, together with the particular Day for it, is a part of Worship, and not a mere Adjunct or Circumstance only. Errata. PAge 108. Line 2. And specially etc. unto the end of that Paragraph, should have been inserted line 16. after the word pleases. p. 136. l. 33. for much read which p. 168. l. 7. for coninuance r. continuance p. 233. l. 34. for lets r. let p. 242. l. 16. for mahomet r. Mahomet l. 33. for if r. If p. 260. l. 19 for puplique r. public p. 261. l. 17. after of r. it p. 266. l. 32. for Chhistian r. Christian p. 273. l. 3. for Pimitive r. Primitive p. 274. l. 25. for justification r. institution p. 275. l. 12. for possibilies r. possibilities p. 276. l. 33. for Apostle r. Apostles p. 277. l. 4. for the r. that p. 282. l. 23. for ver. 16. r. ver. 14. p. 283. l. 25. blot out not p. 296. l. 30. for them r. that l. 36. for charity r. Charybdis p. 305. l. 13. for mianly r. mainly p. 314. l. 5. for referoed r. referred p. 318. l. 27. for continue r. contain p. 322. l. 7. for oligatory r. obligatory p. 332. l. 25. for Leu. 23. r. Leu. 27. p. 346. l. 28. for viz. r. both p. 352. l. 15. for that r. the To the Christian Reader. WE are now (Christian Reader) to enter upon a very great work, not so much in respect of the bulk and length (as containing under it many controversies) as in respect of the subject matter itself, the worth and Dignity of it, The vindication of the Christian Sabbath. In the entrance and Preface whereunto, we think it not amiss to give thee a brief account of some particulars, which may, not being satisfied, stand as prejudices, in the reading of the following Discourse; and they are these. 1. What is the concernment of a Sabbath, that we are so large in vindication of it. 2. Why after so many books of this subject we add any more. 3. Why, seeing there are three parts more, this part comes forth alone, without its fellows. For the first of these; In reading of the Scriptures, 1. The Eulogies of a Sabbath. we do observe that there is not any one part of Religion, (except but the mystery of our Redemption) of which more is spoken than of the Sabbath; The Eulogies of it are so many, that they would easily swell into a volume, if we listed to enlarge ourselves. We shall therefore give thee but a touch or taste of the chiefest Heads. 1. In General, it is the Compendium of all Religion. And first of all, in general, we may call the Sabbath, and the due observation of it, the Compendium, or Continent of all Religion: Hereupon it is very observable, that as the commandment of it, stands in the Heart of the Decalogue as the bond of both the Tables, so it is in other places of Scripture joined with the chiefest Duties of both. Of the first Table in that place, You shall keep my Sabbaths, Levit. 26.2. and reverence my Sanctuary: Of the second Table, in that other place: You shall fear every man his father and his mother, Levit. 19.3. Having all the Privileges that Commend the most Substantial Laws in Scripture. and sanctify my Sabbaths. The Law of the Sabbath hath all those privileges, that do commend any the most substantial Laws in Scripture. It is one of the Ten, spoken by God himself, with Majesty and Terror, written in the Tables of stone, with his own finger; put in the Ark by his own command, together with the rest, to signify (as even one of the Adversaries says) the perpetuity of it. 2. In Particular. 1. The Frequent mention of it; in all parts of sacred Scripture. More Particularly. 1. There is as frequent mention of it, as of any one Commandment, implying, as on the one side, the Importance of it; so on the other, men's untowardness, and backwardness in the observation of it. There is no part of Scripture, wherein there is not something remarkable of a Sabbath. 1. In the Law, or five Books of Moses. 1. In the Law, or the five Books of Moses (so called) we have first (as we doubt not to prove) the Institution of it in Genesis. 2. The solemn Promulgation of it, in Exodus. 3. The manner of Sanctification of it in Leviticus. 4. The Profanation Vindicated, in the Book of Numbers. 5. Pressing arguments for the Observation of it, in Deuteronomie. 2. Then the Historical parts of Scripture, 2. In the Historical parts. have some Remembrances of it, either as observed, or profaned. 3. There is in the Book of Psalms, 3. In the Psalms. Psalm 92.1. 4. In the Prophets. a special Psalm, appointed for it. 4. The Prophets are much and frequent in the complaining of the Violation, and pressing on the Observation of it. 5. 5. In the Gospels. 6. In the Acts. The Gospels have often mention of it. 6. The story of the Acts, hath likewise touches, both of the old and New Sabbath. 7. 7. In the Epistles. The Epistles do hint and insinuate an Institution of a Christian Sabbath. 8. And lastly, 8. In the Revelation. the Revelation, discovers Gods right unto it, giving it the Title of The Lords Day: All which shall be vindicated in due season, from those objections and evasions, which the Adversaries do put upon them. 3. Besides all this, the observation of the Sabbath, 3. It is ranked amongst Substantials. is ranked by the Prophets, amongst the most substantial and perpetual Duties of Religion. 4. 4. The great care of God I D●…ing the commandment. 1. In the Length. 2. Affirmatively and Negatively. The special Cost (if we may so say) and care of God, in delivering the Commandment, argues much worth and waight: As 1. In the Length and largeness of it, to make it plain and evident. 2. That whereas other Commandments are propounded, either Affirmatively only, or Negatively only this is both Affirmative and Negative. 3. 3. Charged upon all sorts. It is Charged upon all sorts of people particularly, especially Superiors, to look well to the observation of it. 4. 4. Urged by many Reasons. It is Urged by many Reasons: As first, God's Interest in it, It is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. Secondly, God's Example, He wrought six days, and rested the seventh. Thirdly, His Sanctification, and blessing of the Sabbath. Fourthly, The equity of the proportions, for Continuance, 5. With a special Memento. and Frequency, but one whole Day of seven, for six allowed unto men. Lastly, it is stamped with a special Memento, in the very front of it, Remember the Sabbath Day, etc. lest it should be forgotten, and as a Watchword of solemn preparation for it. 5. It is called a Gift and Favour. Exod. 16.29. Ezek. 20.12. Nehem. 9.14. 5. The Sabbath is so far from being esteemed, by the people of God, to be a ceremonial. Yoke or burden, that it is divers times called a Gift, and sometimes acknowledged as a special Favour of God. 6. The Observation hath special promises, Nationall and Personal, Temporal and Spiritual. 6. The Observation of it hath as great Encouragements by many special promises, as any one Duty, in all the Book of God, Both Nationall, as Jer. 17.27. Isai. 58.14. and Personal, even to unlikely persons, Isai. 56.2, 4. & 6. Both Temporal and Spiritual, in the same places, which may serve as Comments upon the Blessing mentioned, Gen. 2. and in the Commandment, Exod. 20. Fulfilled on our Nation. And here give us leave a little to demonstrate the exemplification and fulfilling of this Promise and Blessing to this Nation of ours, above any other Nation round about us. As we do not find any other Reformed Church, hath either so clearly maintained the doctrine of the Sabbath, as ours hath, both in the Homily of the Time and place of Prayers, and in so many Authorized Writers, for more than sixty years; or so solemnly observed it, by Command of Laws, Injunctions, and Canons, and the conscientiousness of Governors of families, and private Christians; So we find a special Ratification of the promised Blessing, both in Spiritual and Temporal respects. 1. For the Spiritual, Travellers of all Countries, 1. Spiritual Blessings. that look toward Religion, do testify, that no Country among the Reformed, hath more visible Piety; and Scholars that travel amongst Books, find not where, more exact Treatises of Sanctification, than in England. 2. For Temporal, 2. Temporal. the world is witness how fully Temporal Blessings have been made good to us of this Nation. And (which is singularly observable) our prosperity began to be clear, when the Doctrine of the Sabbath, was owned as the Doctrine of our Church by the aforesaid Homily: which that it was not in King Edward's time, appears by an Act, Anno regni 5, 6. speaking of all Days as alike by God's Word. Whence we observe further, that though all the Stories of the Time, worthily do magnify Edw. 6. in his own Person, as one of the most excellent Princes that ever reigned, yet they speak of his reign, but as a Sad and Dark Day, to the State Temporal, by reason of ill success abroad, and dissensions of the Nobles at home. After which followed a black Night in Queen Mary's time, by the bloody persecutions of her best Subjects, her Forraign-match, and loss of all we held in France. But when Queen Elizabeth succeeding, had restored the Gospel, and withal, the Doctrine of the Sabbath was Resumed and Professed; the Heavens cleared up so bright over our Heads, as never had England a more Glorious Day, even Temporally, than all her reign after. 7. The Transgression of it, is, 1. Aggravated. 7. The Transgression of that Law of the fourth Commandment, and the Profanation of the Sabbath, is, 1. Aggravated by special circumstances, and reckoned amongst the greatest Abominations, Ezek. 20. & 22. 2. Threatened. 2. Threatened, with severest vengeance, both Personally with Death, Exo. 31.14. and nationally with fearful judgements, as Fire in their habitations, Jer. 17.27. 3. Punished. and Desolation to their Country, Levit. 26.34. & 43. 3. And Punished accordingly with death, Numb. 15. and Desolation of their Nation, 2 Chron. 36.21. and so acknowledged as the cause thereof, Nehem. 13.18. Exemplified also in our Nation. And if we might not b● troublesome, we might no less Exemplify the remarkable Judgements upon this Nation of ours, (than we did the Blessings in former times) since the time, that people began to profane the Sabbath, and the Doctrine of it, not only disclaimed, by some of our Writers, but also the Profanation of the Lords Day, authorised by the Book of Sports. It is observed by others, how many dreadful examples there have been of Personal Profanations of that Day; and we think one main Cause of these national Judgements, under which this Land now groans, was the public Toleration of the Profanation of that Day; To say nothing of the manifest decay of Piety, and the Power of Godliness, since that Edict came abroad; we think it is considerable, that our Prosperity hath begun to whither, and our miseries to grow upon us, ever since: But enough of that, at this time. 8. A chief part of Nehemiahs' Reformation, etc. Nehem. 13.15. etc. 8. Lastly, Nehemiah, that Good man, and Good Governor, makes this business of the Sabbath. 1. A special Part of his Reformation, (as our present Reformers have, Blessed of the Lord be they for it) reproving, threatening, and setting watch, against the Profanation of it, by the Heathens. 2. Worth contending for, even with the Nobles, as well as the common people. 3. As a matter for which he expected to be Remembered of God. Nehem. 13.15.22. And now we entreat thee (Christian Reader) sadly to consider, whether the Sabbath, which hath all these Eulogies, be not worth our best endeavours, to vindicate the observation of it, as a principal part of our Religion. But now, it may peradventure seem strange, 2. Why any mor Books of this subject. why after so long silence (in the sabbatical controversies) and after so many books of this subject, intended for the satisfaction of conscientious Christians, we should now again revive that contestation, and trouble the world with, not only a new, but a larger discourse of that kind: We shall therefore briefly give an account of our aims and intentions herein. And our first answer is, that this work was undertaken (as soon as any) many years ago, and well nigh finished, when nothing was written for, but all against the Sabbath. Secondly, here thou shalt expect a larger undertaking, and find (we hope) a farther performance, than in any, in all the tractates written for the Sabbath: For they commonly deal but with our single Adversary, but we with all: And we being spectators of their combats, perhaps might see better than themselves, where their weakness lay: What satisfaction they have given to themselves or others, we do not well know, but for ourselves we must, (with all modesty and due respect to the Authors) profess ourselves unsatisfied by either party. Thirdly, here thou shalt find fuller grounds laid, for the clearing of this so much perplexed controversy, than the brevity of others would well permit, to say no more. Lastly, the professed non-satisfaction from those discourses, by some, not only opposites, but friends also to the Cause. In so much as not only the Adversaries to the Sabbath, have been confident of their Cause, as impossible to be disproved; but also some well-willers to it, have rather wished it might, than hoped it could be strongly and convincingly maintained. And if we may be so bold as to give our Reason, (which we more largely show in the following parts of this Discourse) we suppose that this is one of the chief, because they grant their Adversary, That the Saturday Sabbath, was literally enjoined in the 4. Commandment, which (we think) whosoever grants, he hath lost, not only the Cause, but the Commandment too. Or if some do deny it, yet they do not sufficiently confute it, to ours, or others satisfaction. 3. Why this part without the rest. But then a further Quaere may be, why (if we will needs be writing now) this part comes forth alone, without its fellows. For that, be pleased to consider our Reasons. 1. That we might not give the world some cause, to nauseate at, or surfeit upon too great a volume on the sudden, having been so long accustomed to lesser meals, and lighter meats of Pamphlets. Neither men's minds, nor their leisure, nor perhaps their purses (many of them) will permit to adventure upon larger Discourses. 2. This part, being the foundation of all the rest, if it be strong, will do much alone, to prepare men's minds to admit of the following parts: If it shall any way prove weak, (discovered to us by the censures of many Readers both friends and foes) we shall endeavour to strengthen it, before we proceed to lay on the weight of the rest of the building. 3. This, though first in order, was last in time, in regard of the frame and composure, as being a work of Time, and many sad thoughts, in a path little or not at all trodden by any Authors gone before us: and so necessitating a review of the following parts; for which (as yet) we have no leisure; yet unwilling we are, that this, which (we hope) is able to subsist of itself, should stay for the rest. To add but one thing more: The world, as it was not in former times, so nor is it yet (we fear) well able to bear the following more practical parts, till they be throughly persuaded of the truth of this. It is very well known that the Profanation of the Sabbaths, amongst the Jews, was one of their chiefest desolating sins; and they never began to be serious in observation of it, till they had smarted seventy years in the Babylonian captivity. And till the spirits of men be well broken, the strict, and but due observation of the Sabbath, will be thought an intolerable burden. Success in the entertainment of other truths, (not long since thought impossible to be effected) upon these fearful breaches now among us, makes us conceive that this Doctrine of the Sabbath, will be also ere long, more easily digested. And this part is on purpose premised, as a preparatory to those more practical parts. If any man should further be inquisitive to know, why we do so much assert and confirm our own Positions, in this former part, with so little Refutation of so much as hath been said by the other party; Our answer, is, that most of these Assertions (at least some) are new, and perhaps unexpected to our Adversaries, and therefore nothing could be said by them against them: But principally because the objections do fall upon the other parts more properly and methodically, and there shall be considered to the full. For a conclusion of all, by way of Preface, we have but one word or two more to say, and that by way of earnest entreaty. 1. That thou wilt do thyself this right, and us this favour, as to lay aside all prejudice in the disquisition of that truth, which we all profess to seek, so to suspend thy censure of any parcel of this part, till thou hast seriously, not only read, but weighed it all in the balance of a sound judgement. 2. That thou wilt do the Truth that right, as to yield to, and practise what thou art convinced of. Consider what we say, and the Lord give thee and us understanding and grace in all things through Jesus Christ! So pray Thine in Him DANIEL CAWDREY. HERBERT PALMER. March 25. 1645. THE Christian Sabbath VINDICATED. The first Part. CHAP. I. Of the Term of a Moral Law, and the Distinction of Laws into Ceremonial, judicial, and Moral. THe Term Moral, I. Ambiguity of the word Moral. being but a Scholastical Expression, and not properly signifying that, which is usually understood by it, by any side, in this Question; We would not, by our good will, have meddled at all with it; as having ever judged it a bone of Contention needlessly striven about, by reason of its ambiguity; And so, by not being distinguished aright, having bred much mistaking one of another, and much confusion in Discourses of this Subject. Why then we use it. But because the World hath so taken it up, that it will not easily lay it down again, it is in a sort necessary to make use of it, and accordingly to discourse a little of it in the very entrance of our Dispute, by showing how divers men take it diversely, & what we understand by it in this Controversy: Though when all is said and done, it will be still an ambiguous Term, and liable to mistakes and quarrels. II. Divers Acceptions of it. 1. The Notation of the word Moral, (relating to a Law) signifies, in itself, any Precept, serving to regulate the Manners of Men. And accordingly thus, 1. There are some, who seem to take it sometimes, as that it may (and doth) extend to all the Divine Laws in Scripture of what kind soever. Thus that learned Bishop doth proceed: B. of E. Tract. of Sab. p. 26. [Divine Law called Moral, is a just Rule or Measure imposed by GOD, directing and obliging to the obedience of things Holy, Honest, and Just. The same is simply Moral, or Moral only by some Externall Constitution of GOD. These Positive Laws Moral, are either Personal, or Common, to all Mankind, or to one Nation, etc.] But this we conceive to be too large a sense: for this is to make the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws, Primr. of Sab. p. 4. among the Jews, to be Moral. And he is told by one of his own side, [This is to speak against the ordinary Sense and Custom of all men, 2. Acception of it. who use to distinguish Moral, against Ceremonial and judicial.] 2. Others again take the word, to signify only that which is Natural; as if that only were to be termed Moral, which is of the Law of Nature. So the Author last named in the place cited in the Margin: Ibid. [This Law (Moral) all men take to be the Law of Nature; and reciprocally they take the Law of Nature for this Law.] And thus also do others take it, or we understand them not. [The Moral Law (saith one) is that which concerns the manners of men, C.D. Disc. of Sab. p. 6. The Law Moral is the Law Natural, G. Irons. of Sab. q. 7. p. 77. as men: and this commands those things which in themselves are acceptable and wellpleasing to God, etc.] But say we, the Law Natural only commands such things; Therefore the Law Natural only (in his judgement) is to be called Moral. This Sense of these men we think to be as much too narrow, as the other was wide; and to be too short to contain the full meaning of the word. For whereas Universal, and specially Perpetual, are, even by their own confession, Characters of a Moral Law; there may (we suppose, and they too) be found some Laws which are but Positive, and not Natural; which yet after they were once given, did (and do) concern all men in all Ages to observe, both under the Old Testament, and under the New: and so, we think, deserve the term of Moral Laws. We therefore so understand the word, 3. Our description of a Moral Law. as to imply [any Law of God expressed in Scripture, whether it can be proved Natural, or not; which from the time it was given, to the end of the world, binds all succedding Generations of their Posterity to whom it was given; and more specially obliges the Church, because the Scriptures, the Word of God, was specially written for them, and comes specially to them.] And that there are such Laws, even in the Old Testament, not Natural, yet in that sort Universal and Perpetual, we shall discover, having premised briefly a Division of Laws generally contained in Scripture. And here, III. General Division of the Laws of God. letting pass the Personal Commands given to some particular men or women, for themselves, and one or two more, and obliging none but them: as that to Abraham, To leave his Father's house; and afterward, To sacrifice his Son: And to Manoahs' Wife, How to order herself being with child, and her Son, when he should be borne: and some other such like; which are easily discerned by their Extraordinary Quality, Matter, and Reasons, not appliable to others. Letting these pass, we say, The whole of God's Laws recorded in Scripture, Ceremonial and judicial Laws, also called Judaical and Mosaical, though all not first given to the Jews. may well be divided (as it is usual) into 3. Ranks, Ceremonial, Judicial, and Moral: of which the two former are commonly called Judaical, or Mosaical Laws; though divers of the Ceremonials were not first given by Moses, nor to the jews only, but in Ages before them: For Sacrifices were as ancient as Cain and Abel, (Gen. 4.) and not doubt, from a Divine command or inspiration to their Father. And 2. the Prohibition of eating Blood, was given to Noah and all his Posterity, immediately after the Flood, Gen. 9 Also, 3. Circumcision was given to Abraham and all his Posterity, (and their Families) which were to grow into divers Nations, Gen. 17. And perhaps some others, besides these, may be found, which were given as Laws, before Israel became a People, the People of God. Why then they are so called. But however, because it is certain, that whatever of this kind was given a Law to Posterities, was renewed to Israel by the Ministry of Moses, when God took them to be his people peculiarly; therefore these, and all other peculiarly given to them, whether Ceremonial or Judicial, (which are not esteemed Perpetual) are termed judaical, or Mosaical Laws. iv General Nature of Ceremonials and Judicials. The nature of which, that we may briefly dispatch, we are to conceive, that the Nation of the Jews, taken to be Gods peculiar people, was both a Church, the only Visible Church that God then had upon Earth, as also a Body Politic, or Civil Society. And in both those considerations, God himself was pleased to be their Lawgiver; and besides the Moral Laws, which concerned them as Men, (together with all the rest of Mankind, both towards God, and one another) He vouchsafed to ordain them other Laws, as they were a Church, but a Church in infancy, and under age, till the Messiah, the promised Seed, should come: and these are usually called Ceremonials: And others also, as they were a Commonwealth, to whom the Land of Canaan was allotted for an inheritance, and from among whom that promised Messiah was to be borne: And these Civil Laws are they that are usually called judicials. But for as much as these two considerations, of their being a Church, and a Civil State, had both of them (as we have intimated) special relation unto Christ to come, and so their very Land was a Typical Land, and their Nation a Typical Nation; It is hard to give any such exact description either of Ceremonial or Judicial Laws, as shall neither be too scanty, so as to leave out none of that kind, nor yet enterfere with the other kind: And harder perhaps to find any Judicial (proper to the Jews) which had not somewhat of Ceremoniality in it. But we will endeavour to difference them as distinctly as we can; and that we do in the manner following: V Description of Laws properly Ceremonial. 1. By the Ceremonials we understand, such as concerned the Jews, as God's Church underage; and with them, so many, whose Ancestors had received any of them, in matters between God and them, or relating to a man's particular self, even single; Containing in them Types and Figures of Christ, and of his Graces and Benefits: Or, Documents of Spiritual and Moral Duties. And these were partly belonging to the outward Worship of God, which in those times stood most in such Typical Observances; and partly belonging to matters of common use, as the Prohibitions of Meats, and of Touching such and such things (which those Laws made unclean) and of Ploughing the 7th. year, or with an Ox and an Ass together; and divers such like: By which God would train them up, in that time of his Church's infancy, till Christ should come, as the Apostle implies, Gal. 3. and Heb. 9 We say, train them up. 1. Saint Peter speaking of them Act. 15. saith, They were a yoke on their necks, which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear. To inquire after the spiritual mysteries contained in those Precepts and Prohibitions (of most of which no other tolerable reason could be conceived by them, but only, that God did intent them to signify some higher matters) as also 2. to long for the coming of that promised seed, who should deliver them from the bondage of those wearisome observances, and burdensome forbearances. As even by the Jews writings, it appears that they did expect such freedom by their Messiah. These we take to be properly Ceremonials. But forasmuch as the word Ceremony is of much use in our future Controversy, and is diversely taken by divers men: VI Divers acceptions of the word Ceremonial by others. We will here, once for all (to avoid vain repetitions) distinguish it, according as several men use to take it. And withal, show how far we consent to such senses of the word, and why we descent from them at all. It is then taken three ways by some others. 1. For Ecclesiastical, VII. 1. For Ecclesiastical. to signify any external Rite belonging to external Worship: as being a Church-matter, and distinguished against things Political concerning the Commonwealth. For God hath been pleased in all times of the Church, to Ordain, as some external Worship, so some Rites and Ceremonies belonging thereunto, suitable to those times. And so Divines usually speak of the Tree of life in Paradise, That it was a religious Rite or Ceremony, and namely, to be a Sacrament to Adam in his Innocency. And in this sense, even the Sacraments of the New Testament may be called Ceremonies, as being Ecclesiastical and Religious Rites, commanded by God for his Worship. And it is further said by some, That by God's prescription, the Jews themselves had divers Rites of this nature, not Typical, of Christ to come, or his Grace, etc. yet Ceremonial. [Under this name Ceremony, may, and aught to be comprised (saith one) not only the Types and Figures, Prim●. part 1. c. 12. §. 17. which manifestly are such: but universally all the observations of the Ecclesiastical Policy; some whereof had no Typical signification at all, but were only Ordinances belonging to Order, and Ecclesiastical government.] Which though we cannot admit; as supposing all the Jewish Rites (though we be not able to riddle every one) to have been Typical; particularly because of that of the Apostle, Heb. 8. ver. 5. [That all things belonging to the Tabernacle, being commanded to be made according to the pattern shown Moses in the Mount; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. the Priests using them, served for an example and shadow of heavenly things.] Yet for the present we are content to Record what he grants, as useful for some purposes hereafter, perhaps against himself. VIII. 2. For temporary. Patt rn of Catech. Doct. p 234. D. Wal. dissert. de Sab pag 16. 2. Some others take Ceremonial for Mutable and Temporary. So the learned Catechist gives the Notation of the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] given only for a time, and then after to expire. And some others as they take Moral and Immutable for the same, so by Ceremonial they understand changeable and Temporary. And if we take it so, than all the Judicials, as they are commonly called, come no less properly under the term of Ceremonial, than the Typicalls. But though we believe sundry Judicials had some Typicallnesse in them (●s was touched before) and so were partly Ceremonial; yet to rank them and the Typicalls both equally under the term of Ceremonial, we think, is a little too much to confound things different. IX. 3. Figurative. 3. Others by Ceremonial, understand only Figurative (as unquestionably most of the Jewish Rites were) but than they divide them into three sorts, as being (they say) either 1. Memorials of somewhat past, or 2. significative of somewhat present, or 3. Typical of somewhat to come (of Christ, his Actions, or Passions, or Benefits, arising from both) and some Ceremonies had all these uses, undoubtedly, as the Passeover, and some others. This sense we grant (in part) to be proper: having before described Ceremonies to be Types, Figures, and Documents. But we shall not easily grant them, that [All Memorials of things past, or signs of things present (no not under the old Testament (much less under the New) are properly called Ceremonial, so as to be contradistinct to Moral, and so to be mutable and temporary] we by moral understanding perpetual, as we said before. X. Description of Laws properly Judicial. Now for the Judicials, we conceive they may be thus described to be [Laws given to the people of Israel, in civil matters between man and man, to order them, as they were a body politic, to whom the Land of Canaan was allotted for an inheritance, and from among whom the promised Messiah was to be born] We put in those relations, to the Land of Canaan, and to the Messiah, because all the peculiar civil Laws they had, were founded (as we suppose; and instances may undoubtedly be given of it in very many of them) upon peculiar respects unto those Promises. Which we the rather conceive, because some of them were Indulgences, and some Precepts, which are not now so much as lawful to be practised, (much less perpetual and necessary to us:) As to instance in no other but that of Divorce, which was an Indulgence to them, as our Saviour expressly saith, and by Him thenceforth repealed, Mat. 5. & 19 & Luk. 16. And that of marrying the Widow of a Brother dead without Children; which was not so much an Allowance, as a strict Precept; but yet esteemed by Divines generally unlawful now; as was at large disputed in the famous Case of our King Henry the 8. having married his Brother Arthur's widow: and appears contrary to the law of Leu. 18.16. Leu. 20.21. Which Law of not marrying the Brother's Widow, being but Positive, (as we shall anon have our Adversaries confession for) though God made it Moral to all Generations, yet he was pleased then (as he might) to make that forenamed particular Exception from it, among the Jews, in regard of preserving Inheritances in Families in that Land, which he would have distinct among them for the Messiahs' sake, to know clearly of what Tribe he came, and the like. So then we esteem those properly Judicials, which between man and man were Relatives to the Land of Canaan, XII. Moral Laws described. and expectation of the Messiah. And all other, (not such, nor Ceremonial, as before) we esteem Moral. And of these Moral Laws we are now to speak somewhat more largely. Of which we think it convenient to repeat the Description, XIII. The description of a Moral Law cleared, in 5 branches. and assign some Reason of the several parts of it, and then proceed to the Division of it, according to our Scope. [A Moral Law, (we say) is, any Law of God, expressed in Scripture, (whether it can be proved Natural, * When we say, a Moral Law binds, we deny not, but God may dispense at his pleasure with any Moral Positive, as in the case of Incest before noted. or not) which from the time it was giver, to the end of the World, binds all succeeding Generations of their Posterity to whom it was given; and more specially obliges the Church, because the Scriptures, the Word of God; was specially written for them, and comes specially to them.] Here we 1. say, Any Law of God expressed in Scripture; because the Scripture contains all the Laws of God, even those that are called Laws of Nature, (and written plainly, or at least in their Principles, in all men's hearts) as well as any special and Positive Institution of God. The Scripture, we say, hath all: and nothing is to be admitted, no not under the Title of a Law of Nature, what consent soever it may pretend to plead from the Heathens and Natural men, which is not warranted by Scripture (in express words, or certain consequence) to be Gods Will and Command, even now. 2. We say, [whether it can be proved Natural, or not] because we undertake to prove some Laws perpetual, which we will not contend to be Moral Natural. 3. We say [from the time it was first given] as well, because we esteem some Laws, granted to be Moral, and given under the Old Testament, not to be given at the Creation, but many years after; as that against Marrying of Brothers and Sisters together, (of which we shall say somewhat anon) as also because we suppose the Laws concerning the two Sacraments of the New Testament, and some other Evangelicall Laws, to deserve the name of Moral, being Perpetual undeniably, though not given till our Saviour's coming in the Flesh. 4. We add, [which binds all succeeding Generations of their Posterity to whom it was given:] that we may prevent the Quarrel of disputing of the manner of Promulgation: For if it were given to the Parents, the Transgression must needs be a Sin (though of Ignorance) in those of their Posterity, who having lost the Knowledge of it, had also forsaken the Practice: And so even men account Ignorance of Humane law, once clearly given, not to excuse totally. 2. That we may not include any, who neither by themselves, nor their ancestors, ever heard of a Law, if only Positive, as the New Testament Laws particularly, (which till the Gospel be preached in a Nation, cannot oblige them) if any Nation can be supposed never to have had them. 5. Finally, we say, [They more specially oblige the Church, because the Scripture, the Word of God, was specially written for them, and comes specially to them.] This adds a second Obligation, even to the Laws of Nature, and so to all others formerly given; and so Israel was the second or third time obliged to the Laws of the Decalogue, and some others, because they had a renewed, (and so more undeniable) Charge of them, by Word and Writing; and could not so much as plead Ignorance, unless wilful, through neglect of the Scriptures, which was specially given them to be God's Statute-book, and Authentic Record of his Laws. Of which, so many as He was pleased to ordain to be Perpetual, we ascribe the Term of Moral unto, as we have said. And of these we say further, and clearly, XIV. Moral Laws divided into Natural and Positive. (though we have given intimations of it already) That they are of two kinds; Morall-Naturall, and Morall-Positive. Which agreeing in Perpetuity, (as far as we have already showed) do differ in their distinct Properties; as will appear by their several Descriptions, to which we now proceed in their order. And first, a Law Morall-Naturall, we think, XV. Description of a Moral Natural Law. may thus properly be expressed: [A Law of Things necessary to be done or forborn, toward God or Man, ourselves, or others: which the Nature of Man now (though corrupted) either doth acknowledge, or may at least be convinced of to be such, (even without the Scripture) from Arguments drawn from those Principles which are in the hearts of all men generally even now.] So that he must contradict some of those Principles, which yields not to those Laws, specially when he is rationally urged with them. Or more briefly thus: [A Law of Nature is a Law, which may be proved not only just, but necessary, by Principles drawn from the light of Nature, which all Reasonable men have still in their hearts.] We choose to express it thus, rather than, as some others do, XVI. Refusal of other Descriptions. 2 Reasons against a first. in a twofold Variety, and as we conceive, Erroneously on either hand. 1. Some describe it, by [being written in man's heart at the first Creation.] But this we apprehend to be a very uncertain (not to say altogether impertinent) Description. For if we shall consider, 1. That the Scripture no where characterizes any particular Law by these Titles, of being a Law of Nature, or written in man's heart at the first Creation. 2. That all men's Natures are now corrupted; and so created Nature is to us at this day a merum Nonens; with it we have nothing to do in this Question, because we cannot know all that was then written in man's heart. But will we, nill we, our present Nature (though corrupted) must be the Judge, according to the light it hath still left, XVII. 2. Another rejected. Which Laws are absolutely necessary for all men, and so, Which are Laws of Nature. 2. Others (and perhaps the same men at another time) describe it by [being written in the hearts of the Gentiles of old] And so they go to seek in Humane Authors, for the general Practice and acknowledgement of the Gentiles; which where they find wanting, they deny such Laws to be Laws of Nature: And under this pretence, they strongly reject (as they think) the 4. Commandment for one Day in seven, from being Moral, (by which they will understand only Morall-Naturall) because it was not written in the hearts of the Gentiles, not acknowledged, nor practised by them of old. XVII. 2 Reasons of it. But this description of Morall-Naturall we cannot admit, for a double Reason. 1. Because some Laws had the Testimony of all the Heathens Practice and Acknowledgement generally, and so seems written in all their hearts; which yet are so far from being Morall-Naturall, that they were merely Ceremonial, and are now abolished; as the Law of sacrificing some material things to God; a Sheep, or an Ox, or Flower, or Wine, or the like. 2. And specially, because the most undeniable Law of Nature (or one of them) that is, or can be, namely, the worshipping of one only God, shall not be Morall-Naturall, if we stand to the proof of the Generality of the Heathens Practice and Acknowledgement. For all that know any thing, know, that they generally (and even the very Jews too, very often, before the Babylonish Captivity) worshipped a Plurality of Gods. If therefore the Gentiles not observing nor owning a seventh-day Sabbath, be a sufficient proof to evince the 4. Commandment not Moral, (though we contend not for its being Morall-Naturall, as it commands so much, and no more, of solemn Time for Continuance and Frequency together) It will not only thrust out also the second Commandment from being Moral, because it is apparent that all the World, of old, made and worshipped Images; and so it is clear, that Law was not generally written in all their hearts: But even the first Commandment will not be admitted to be Moral, because all the World generally worshipped a plurality of Gods: And so neither was the Law of [having no other Gods but the Lord] written generally in the hearts of the Gentiles: We know, some of the wiser Philosophers did indeed profess but one God, as Socrates; but even for that (as they writ) he was condemned to death by his ungodly Countrymen. Also it is certain, that it may be proved, even from those Principles of the light of Nature remaining in the hearts of all Reasonable men now, [That there is but One GOD] and so, [That we are to worship Him alone, and so but One.] Whence it follows, that as there is now no other Judge of Laws of Nature, but our present Nature, however corrupted: so we say, the Judgement must be made, not simply according to first Apprehensions, but awakened Principles. Therefore also for a further clearing of these Laws of Nature, XVIII. Degrees of Moral Natural Laws. 1. Principles. Aquin. 2. ●. 94. art. 2. c. 1 we add, [That they are not all of equal evidence or clearness, but admit of Degrees.] And so they may be further distinguished: 1. There are some Principles of Nature: of which the Great Schooleman thus writes: [Although in themselves the Precepts of the Law of Nature are many; yet may they all be reduced to this one; Good is to be prosecuted, Evil is to be avoided.] 2. 2. Conclusions. Some are Conclusions necessarily resulting from that Principle by way of Demonstration. Which Conclusions, as they arise at the first or second hand, or the like, may further be distinguished into immediate, or mediate. The immediate Conclusions are only two: Immediate. Mat. 2●. The first, [Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, etc. And the second, Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thyself. On these two Commandments, saith our Saviour, hang all the Law and the Prophets.] The mediate Conclusions are such, 2. Mediate. as do also arise from the former Principle, but by the interposition of the two former Conclusions. And of this kind are confessedly some, even most of the Commandments of the Decalogue, if not all. But of this more anon. The sum then of this Discourse of Naturally-Morall Laws, XIX. Character of Laws Moral-Naturall. is, That their proper Character is, [To be in themselves not only just and convenient, but even necessary, in the Nature of the Laws themselves: for all reasonable creatures, such as Mankind, are universally and perpetually to stand obliged unto, toward GOD, themselves, and one another: and which very Nature, though corrupted, may be forced to confess such. But now besides these Morall-Naturall Laws, XX. Description of a Morall-Positive Law. there are (we say) others, which we call Morall-Positive. And these we describe to be, [Laws, clearly laid down in Scripture, (in express words, or certain consequence) which Nature, though corrupted, cannot reasonably deny to be just, good, (and so convenient to be perpetuated, according to the Lawgivers pleasure:) Though antecedent to His Will, some way revealed to them, it would not, nor could not have judged them to be of themselves altogether necessary] Nature, even corrupted, cannot deny, but that it is fit, that the Lawgivers Will and Pleasure should stand for a Law with his Creatures: and so, though it could have discerned no necessity of such, or such an Obligation, by the light of Nature merely, (as perhaps even created Nature could not in some of them) yet such equity and equality and goodness being in them, as they cannot but acknowledge them convenient, and fit to be perpetuated, unless God have expressed himself to the contrary. These we call Morall-Positive Laws, and esteem them universal to all their Posterity to whom they were given, and Perpetual to them, from the time they were given, unto the World's end, and so to all the Church in after ages, unless where God was pleased to make any particular exceptions or exemptions. And though we confess God might have changed, or abrogated any of these Laws so qualified, yet we do not believe that He hath, unless it be undeniably expressed of this or that particular Law in question. Of which persuasion we shall give our grounds in due season. And now, upon this Distinction (if we be not deceived) the greatest part of the present Controversy in this Discourse depends. It concerns us therefore to vindicate this fully, and make good this ground, before we proceed any further. And that there are some Positive Laws in Scripture, thus Moral, that is, of universal extent (after they were once given) and perpetual obligation, we thus endeavour to make manifest. XXI. Proofs, that there are such Laws. 1. God's Prerogative may make such. First, GOD'S Prerogative and absolute Dominion over all men as his Creatures, (as we touched before) may authorize his Will to make such Laws, and to impose them upon the World, and that even for a proof of his Prerogative Royal & absolute dominion, and consequently a Trial of his Creatures Obedience. And this is in a manner acknowledged by one, that yet makes exception to this Distinction: Primr. p. 5. [It must (saith he) be the revealed will of GOD, that matches Positive with Natural Laws, and marks them with the silver stamp of immutability.] So we say, it must be, and so it is, for XXII. 2. His will hath done so in several Ages. Secondly, the same Will that was pleased to make Positive Laws universally and perpetually obligatory to the World of the same Age, may, no doubt, make Laws universal and perpetual for both Ages of the World: But God hath done the former, as will appear by these instances: 1. For the old World, even beginning with Adam, and ending with Christ, (as Divines commonly make the period) the Law of Sacrifices was an universal and perpetual Law; the practice whereof we find in the very beginning, in Cain and Abel, without doubt, not without some Divine command to their Father: and all succeeding Generations, even of Heathens practised this. 2. To Noah was a Law of this kind given, for himself and all his Posterity, as cannot be denied, Gen. 9 To abstain from eating blood; though afterward it was more specially renewed, and applied to the Jews; and the Gentiles lost it, as they did other things, even of the Law of Nature, as we touched before. 3. In the new World, beginning with Christ, At least for this Age. and continuing till the day of Judgement, the two Sacraments of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, are unquestionably Positive Laws, yet universal, (as soon as the Gospel comes to any) and perpetual; and so may be termed Moral, from the time they were given, to the world's end. 4. Nay, we have a Record of a Law Morall-Positive given to Adam, even before his fall, reaching to all his Posterity, to the world's end, viz. The not eating of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge. For, that it bond all men, appears by too woeful experience, all Mankind being sinners for breaking of it in and with Adam. Therefore since God hath done thus from the beginning, to give Positive Laws, and yet make them Moral, Universal, and Perpetual; we can see no reason, but that there may be some other such, for both Ages of the World; Only we must look that we pitch our mark aright, upon those that are indeed so. To which therefore we say further. Thirdly, that not only there may be, XXIII. 3, There are such still in force. Confessed by the Adversaries themselves. XXIV. 1. in Sense. C. D. p. 8. but that there are some other such Positive Laws delivered in Scripture, that from the time they were first given, bind all Posterities in the Generations succeeding, even in all Ages: and this by the confession of the Adversaries themselves. 1. in sense, and 2. in plain words. 1. In sense: To which purpose, let those words of one of them be considered: [That however all the Precepts of the Moral Law, (he means it of the Decalogue) belong to the Law of Nature, as being agreeable to Reason (which is the rule of humane actions) and are, in that respect, of perpetual observation; yet all of them are not of the same rank, nor belong in the same degree and manner to the Law of Nature. Something's there are, which we by the instinct of Nature presently see to be good, or bad, etc. Others there are that require more consideration of Circumstances, and use of Discourse, to apprehend and judge of them. And lastly, there are some, to the knowledge whereof Humane Reason stands in need of Divine instruction. And these two latter sorts, specially the last, though they in some sort belong to the Law of Nature, (and were haply, at our first Creation, written in the Tables of man's Heart, in more plain characters, and more easy to be read, than now since the fall they are) may, in respect of the other, be termed Moral, not in regard of Nature dictating, but in regard of Discipline, informing Nature.] He speaks here of the last sort of Laws, under the Title of Laws of Nature, (which is more than we will say:) But afterwards, qualifying the speech, and calling them Moral, not in regard of Nature dictating, but in respect of Discipline informing Nature; he saith the very same that we do: For Morale Disciplinae, and Morale Positivum, are one and the same: Divine Instruction or Revelation (contra-distinguished to Nature) and Divine Imposition, is altogether the same in point of Laws. Tract. of Sab. pag. 3. To which purpose see another of their own, Mr. Brerewood by name, who being dead, was forced first to speak against the Morality of the fourth Commandment: yet this Distinction he acknowledgeth, and applies to the fourth Commandment: [Moral is that which belongs to Manners; 1. by the instinct of Nature, as belonging to the inward Law written in our hearts. Or 2. by Instruction of Discipline, as being of the outward Law appointed by GOD, as that of observing the seventh Day; so that it may be termed Natural, (which is more than we yet say) as being not of the Institution of Nature, but of the Discipline of Nature, etc.] XXV. 2. In express words. Bp. of E. p. 27. Namely, 1. Against Polygamy. Proved Positive, yet Moral. Secondly, in the very words, the learned Bishop speaking of Laws Positively Moral, saith, [Some are common and general to all Mankind, as the Law of Polygamy and Wedlock, within some degrees, mentioned Leu. 20.] And that the Law against Polygamy, published by Adam, or by GOD himself to Adam, at the first beginning: [For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh, Gen. 2.] was indeed but Positive, may be sufficiently concluded, by that, that many, even of the holiest men, after Abraham, were Polygamists: Of whom it were a wild sentence, to say, they lived continually in a breach of a Law of Nature: Can it be supposed, that those holy men who had the light of Divine revelation often, should generally have wanted light about a Law of Nature? or much less, that they could have lived in a Practice against any light they had? Divines also generally acknowledging the Negative part of the Laws of Nature to bind (ad semper) and to be perpetually indispensable. It was then a Positive Law, yet Moral; and therefore (though ignorantly) yet they sinned in breaking of it, as appears by what Malachy writes, Mal. 2. And our Saviour specially argues from the institution of Marriage in the beginning, Mat. 19 Again, for the Laws against incestuous marriages, XXVI. 2. Against incestuous Marriages: proved Moral, though Positive. (wherein we have at once many instances of Laws Positively Moral) That they were, and are Moral, appears by Gods counting the Transgressions, such Abominations, when he speaks of them; and saying, that for them the Land of Canaan did spew out her Inhabitants, though Gentiles. And that they were yet but Positive, appears also by the special instance of Cain and Seth, marrying their sisters: and necessarily; for there were no other women to marry: yet had they not only leave, but charge to increase and multiply, Gen. 1. But considering that (as was said before) Negative Laws of Nature bind (ad semper) and are held perpetually Indispensable, It is not to be imagined, that God would have necessitated them to break a Law of Nature: but rather for the time have created them wives, as he did to Adam. It was therefore a Positive Law given after that time, and so (from thenceforth) Moral, Universal, and Perpetual: And their Perpetuity is also acknowledged by all Divines, and even many of the Heathens. From all which, as we have made our Distinction good; XXVII. Some inferences from those Confessions. Pag. 31. so we may also note, 1. That the Bishops 3. character of a Law simply and formally Moral, (by which he means Morall-Naturall) [That it is of universal and perpetual Obligation] is not sound and true, because not convertible. For himself hath given us here an instance of many Laws common and general to all Mankind, and consequently, of universal and perpetual Obligation, which yet he confesseth to be positively Moral. 2. And further, if a Positive Law may be of perpetual Obligation, why may it not be of immutable Institution? They were not then well advised, who cavil at this Position, as an affirmation without ground, Hist. of Sab. part. 2. p. 177. and without reason, or [such a piece of Learning and Contradiction, as was never put up to show, till in these latter times.] For what is that they quarrel at? [That a Positive Law should be immutable in itself. Dr. Ames. Theol. 2. c. 15. §. 6. ] So the Historian reports Dr. Ames his words: But the Doctor (if he look again) did not say, it was immutable in itself, (that is his addition) but immutabilis plane Institutionis: he meant it with respect to men, on whom it was imposed, who have no power to change the Institution of GOD: For so he adds, [So that in respect of our duty and obligation, it hath the very same force with those Laws that were Natural.] And again, a little after, [This Positive Right, on which this Institution is grounded; is right Divine, and in respect of men, altogether immutable.] Mark you Sir, in respect of men, and Divine Institution, it is immutable, not in itself. And we heard before, that the revealed will of God may match Positive with Natural, in regard of immutability. But besides these, we have the approbation of this Distinction, by other Authors: Take one more; Tract. of Tithes. Mr, Carleton (afterward a Bishop) distinguishing of the right of Tithes, saith thus: [Moral things are so, either by Nature, or by Institution; as sanctifying a seventh day, and Tithes] And we cannot but wonder, that these men, who so stiffly plead for Tithes to be due Jure Divino, not Natural, but Positive, shall yet cry out of this Distinction, only when it is applied to the 4th. Commandment, for one day in seven. Let them consider it. XXVIII. Agreements of Morall-Naturall, and Morall-Positive Laws. The distinction now of Moral Laws into Natural and Positive, being sufficiently cleared, we shall only propound the further agreement of these Laws, and then conclude this Chapter. They differ as afore, and agree in 2 things, besides Perpetuity. First, in their Authority, and force of Obligation: A Positive Law in force, doth as strongly bind the Conscience, as a Natural; (aeque, though not aequaliter.) 2. In their Independence, both depend upon God, Pag. 31. and not upon the will of man; and so are indispensable by humane authority. The Bishop therefore misapplieth this piece of his 3d. Character, as belonging to Laws simply and formally Moral, [That no Authority of men or Angels can exempt or privilege any from their Obligation.] For neither can they do it in a Positive Law. CHAP. II. Rules to know a Law to be Moral, though but Positive. THat there are Laws of GOD, Moral, or Perpetual, I. What Positive Laws are Moral. (which we henceforth take for one and the same thing) though but Positive, we suppose to have evinced in the former Chapter. Yet we grant withal, that sundry Laws in Scripture, being Positive, are not Moral; and those not only, which were special to a Person or Nation, but also some of them which were general to the first Age of the World, namely, until Christ's coming. Divers of these we confess abolished, and of no obligation under the New Testament: Wherefore, that we may make use of our Distinction (and Assertion) of some Laws Morall-Positive, as well as some Morall-Naturall; we must in the next place lay down, what kind of Positive Laws we hold to be still in force; and upon what grounds we hold so of them: By giving some Rules, whereby it may be conceived, how far we stand obliged with conscience of obedience to them. And they are these, or some of these, which follow. First, II. Rule 1. [Every Law of God (though but Positive) recorded in the Scripture, is Moral and Perpetual, unless it be afterward found Repealed by God, or Expired in the nature of it.] We will explain this Rule, and then prove it. 1. Explained. This Rule is propounded of all the Laws of God generally, as recorded in Scripture. 1. Because the Fundamental proof of it, is equally for both Testaments. 2. Because some Laws, not only recorded in the New Testament, but seeming to be ratified there, (as that of not eating Blood, etc. of which Law we shall speak somewhat anon) are taken to be afterward repealed. 3. Because some Laws or Precepts of the New Testament are esteemed expired, though not repealed; as that, Joh. 13. of washing one another's feet, Of anointing the sick with oil, that they might recover, Jam. 5. And perhaps some others are of a like nature. 2. We say, All Laws are perpetual, except first God hath afterward repealed them: that we may reserve to him the sovereignty of his Authority, particularly over Positive Laws; which as they proceeded at first from his authority and pleasure, so may any of them, or all of them, at any time, by his pleasure and authority be taken away, and repealed again. Or, 2. It be expired: of which by and by. 3. By God's repealing of any Law, we understand, any sentences of Scripture, particularly of Christ and his Apostles, declaring, that it is not the will of God, that such Laws should any longer be counted in force; whether they be named expressly (as in some places they are) or comprehended under those general expressions concerning the Jewish Ceremonies, calling them shadows, and Worldly Rudiments, Col. 2. Weak and beggarly Elements, Gal. 4. Carnal Ordinances imposed on them until the time of Reformation, Heb. 9 and, a yoke which they were not able to bear, Act. 15. (which latter phrase will fetch in also some of the Judicials perhaps, such namely as cannot now be observed by particular Christians without manifest prejudice, much less be held up by any Christian State without real and special inconveniences.) And whatsoever comes certainly under any of these Terms, we esteem and reckon it repealed, though not expressly named. But whatsoever is without the limits of those Phrases, and not particularly mentioned as abolished, we account not repealed, though possibly it may be expired for all that; which therefore we add. 4. By a Laws being Expired in the Nature of it, we mean, when it was manifestly given, and continued for some particular Reason, which Reason is now manifestly ceased, and so without any repealing of it, it is of itself at an end in respect of Obligation, (though if it have no real inconvenience in it now, it may be freely continued still: and if the reason of it should (or could) be revived, so would the Law be in like sort.) And thus expired are sundry other of the Judicial Laws in the Old Testament, and those forementioned in the New Testament. III. Usually allowed. And these Descriptions of a Law repealed or expired, seem to be so sufficient, as that it is the usual practice of all conscientious Christians, specially Divines, that when they speak of any Law of the Old Testament, as Ceremonial, or Judicial, and so no longer in force (or any Precept of the New Testament not now binding us) they presently propound either some express Text rejecting it now, or at least some general sentence including it among those that are now excluded, because of some Typical signification that it hath, and the burdensomeness and inconvenience of it, if it should be still counted in force; or at least, the manifest ceasing of the reason for which they conceive it was at first given (or after continued for a while) and so that there is no reason now, why it should be counted still a Law of God. Which, N. B. before we go any further to add any special Proofs of our Rule, seems a confession of it, (which we desire may be well noted) in that none of them goes about, absolutely or simply, to plead exemption from any particular Law, whether in the New or Old Testament, but only so far forth as he goes about to prove it to come under the compass either of such a Repeal, or an Expiration. But yet for all this, we believe, iv Yet excepted against. that this Rule doth already sound harshly in divers ears; and particularly, we are sure that our Ante-Sabbatarians will not let it pass without Exception; for they proceed quite contrary, as well in affirming, B. of E. p. 171. [That a Precept Evangelical is of necessary obligation] which yet we cannot yield without the former Qualification; nor yet do they themselves in other places: As also specially, in that they seem peremptory, B. of E. p. 120. [That no Precepts of the old Law merely Positive, are in force under the Gospel, unless the same be ratified and confirmed by the Gospel] where they suppose it is not enough to keep an old Law in force, that it is not Repealed expressly; but they require an express Ratification of it in the Gospel or New Testament, otherwise they take it (Without more ado) to be expired, though not repealed: which, by their leaves, we take to be an Error, and that upon these grounds following. First, from the Authority of the Lawgiver, V Proved by 4. Reasons. 1. From the Lawgivers Authority. which is the same under the Old Testament, and under the New; requiring the obedience of Christians now, as well as of his People of old: so that whatsoever Law is once delivered to the Church, and accordingly recorded in the Law-book, the holy Scriptures, even of the Old Testament; whosoever will claim exemption from it, whether particular Person or Church, must produce somewhat to prove, that that Law is now (under the Gospel) repealed, or at least expired; more than bare saying, that it is no longer in force. It is so in the Statute-Law of our Kingdom (and of all Kingdoms) if a man can allege for himself in point of Right or Privilege, (or the King's Council, for the King's Rights and Prerogatives) any Statute that was once made, it stands good for all purposes, unless they who would gainsay it, can allege and prove that such a Statute is out of date, by expiration or repeal. So that the proof lies originally upon the refuser of the Law, and they that would maintain it and urge it, need plead nothing more than the enacting of it once, till the abrogation of it can be verified. And if it be so in the Statutes of men, and the Positive Laws of Kingdoms, much more in those of God, whose Authority is unquestionably more absolute, and whose Wisdom, and Holiness, and justice, and Goodness, is infinitely beyond that of all Princes and States in the World. This we take to be a point meriting exceeding much consideration, though we find cause to doubt, it is but little considered, even by many Christians and Divines. VI 2. The Old Test. is part of the Canon. Secondly, we confirm our Rule therefore, and this first proof of it, by a second or further illustration of it, in this manner. Because the old Testament is a part of the Rule of our Lives, as well as the New, and Canonical Scripture, not only by way of Story or Doctrine, but by way of precept and command, and binds us Christians as well (though not so much) as it did the jews. Our Divines when they handle the Doctrine, If any say our Divines when they maintain the Law still to be in force as a Rule, mean the Moral Law only. We say the same too, only we argue that all that are written are Moral to us till we have proved the contrary of any particular. of Christ's delivering from the written Law (viz. In the old Testament, of which the only questition is) profess continually that he hath delivered us. 1. From the curse of the Law. 2. From the Laws being a Covenant of works unto us, whereby we should be justified; But not from the obedience of it, or obligation to it, as a Rule of our Practice, and that so it still remains in force, and shall do to the world's end. And the contrary is generally condemned in the Anabaptists, and Antinomists, whose proper opinion it is, that they make void all the Laws of the old Testament, unless in express words renewed and repeated in the New Testament, and whosoever will not join with them, must be forced to acknowledge our Rule to be good, whether the Laws be Moral Natural, or merely Positive: as our adversaries themselves have confessed of some, and they cannot but confess who hold the Laws particularly against incestuous Marriages to be perpetual, which yet are not so much as named (except having a man's Father's Wife) in all the New Testament, the reason of which silence we shall give a touch of by and by. Mean time we find a learned Bishop of chiefest note in our Church after this manner to undertake to prove, Le● lata non irrita facta ian obligat Epis. Win opusc. pag. 148. that Tithes are due by divine right. [this Law (saith he) did sometimes oblige the Church, as cannot be denied; but it is not now Abrogated, therefore it binds still] in which argumentation he must needs take our Rule for a ground [A Law instituted in the old Testament not Abrogated in the New, is of perpetual obligation, though it have no express ratification in the Gospel] leaving therefore our adversaries at home to answer him, we add yet a further proof of our Rule. Thirdly, otherwise the Church of God, VII. 3. Else no Canon, till the New. T. written. immediately after the Death of Christ, for many years together, that is, until the New Testament was written, had had no written Canon at all for their practice, either toward God, or toward men; but were left merely to the Law of Nature: For the old Testament was, it seems, quite disannulled at the Death of Christ, at least in regard of all Positive Laws (that against Polygamy and all) and as for the Moral, they bond not the Christians as written in the old Testament; or (as some say) as given by Moses, but only as Laws of Nature. All which we conceive a great inconvenience; in regard that Nature corrupted (which is now to be the Judge, as we said before) is but a dim Light, in those in whom it is most clear. And whereas it may be pretended, that the Preaching of Christ and his Apostles might sufficiently supply the want of the written Law; we answer, that though it might to the Gentiles, who were strangers to the Scriptures of the old Testament yet not to the jews (and those that conversed with them) who could never have been wrought upon to have embraced the Doctrine of the Gospel, if it had not been grounded upon the Doctrine of the Law of the old Testament, that is, if they that Preached it had not called for Repentance for transgressions of the Law, and urged still to the obedience of it, as indeed both Christ and his Apostles do upon all occasions: and without it also, their Preaching would easily have been both forgotten and mistaken, if there had been no grounds of God's Law written, by and upon which to settle the consciences of their hearers. Fourthly, VIII. 4. Confirmed by Christ, and his Apostles. to all which we may in the last place adjoin this consideration, that if those places in the New Testament be observed (some of them at least, if not all) where it is pretended, that Christ, or any of his Apostles do ratify any of the Laws of the Old Testament, it will be found that they contain no such ratification as our adversaries pretend in this question. For they will appear not to be spoken by way of such confirmation, without which those Laws ought to have been no longer accounted in force, which in propriety of speech is a new imposition of them. As when a King by his Proclamation confirms his former Proclamation which was void by the death of his Predecessor, this is properly a new imposition of the same things by his Authority, which after the former King's death were not of any validity at all. We say, that the confirmation that the New Testament gives unto the Laws of the Old Testament will not be found to be of this Nature, but rather testifications of those Laws standing in force; and so alleging them to confirm their own Doctrine, or to be a ground of it. As our Saviour evidently alleges a Text out of Gen. 2. to ground and confirm his Doctrine against divorce, Mat. 19 and the Apostles in like manner, as we shall give some other instances hereafter, rather fetching their Authority (in part at least) from the books of the Old Testament in matters of practice (as well as of Faith) then lending strength to them by their own Authority. IX. So that the very silence of the N. T. rather confirms any Law, then Abrogates it. And so we suppose we may, upon just reason infer, that the silence of the New Testament concerning a Law, expressly and cleare-livered in the Old Testament, is a confirmation rather than an abrogation of it, or an intimation that it is expired; judicious Divines giving this for a reason of the silence of the New Testament in divers points, which are most vehemently urged in the old, as against incestuous marriages fore noted (and that others are but slightly, and as it were occasionally mentioned, as the Laws about Tithes and usury, etc.) because they are so clearly and importunately pressed in the old. And therefore till we see better reasons to the contrary, than any we have yet met with in all our disputers books, we must needs hold, that all the Laws of the Old Testament are perpetuated to this day, if there be nothing against them in the New Testament by way of repealing them: or at least in reason, which might plead for an expiration. And if any one think, that by this assertion, sundry of the Laws which are usually counted judaical will prove to be in force still; we answer, that perhaps it may prove so indeed. And, if we may have Liberty to express our apprehension of the Case in general, we must needs confess, that as we believe it lies upon our Consciences in particular, to prove any particular Law, this or that, (which we hold to be Ceremonial or Judaical) to be such; or else we cannot justly (nor safely) plead it to be Repealed or Expired, if it be not named among such expressly in the New Testament: So we are afraid, that many Divines, (not to say some Churches and States now adays) have been a little too bold in rejecting sundry Laws as merely Judaical, which upon further advisement might perhaps be found Moral and Perpetual. To which our next Rule will speak some what more fully. But before we proceed to that, X. The Text Act. 15.28, 29. expounded we will (as we intimated before a promise in our Margin) speak a little of that place Act. 15. for 3 causes specially: One is, that The things there mentioned to be Necessary to be observed, when all the rest of the Jewish Ceremonies were discharged, are not all of one kind, but one of them is Moral, the other three Ceremonial. 2. Because not only some persons are yet tender in the point of eating Blood, but also the Greek Church generally hold that Prohibition in force. Therefore we will say somewhat at least toward the clearing of both these, as also why the Ceremonies mentioned were continued then, if they be not now in force. 3. For that some light also may perhaps from hence be afforded to judge of some other Laws. But all briefly, that we may not be held too long in any Digression from the main Intendment. We find in that place Act. 15. XI. 1. Why Fornication forbidden there, being Moral. four Laws by name recommended to the Christian Gentiles: whereof one is against Fornication, (to begin with that first) And of this we say, that it is indeed a Moral Law, and perpetual, (though if Polygamy, and the Law of Marriage be but Positive Laws, as was argued before, this also is but Positive) and the Morality and Perpetuity of it appears undeniably by ranking of it every where, in St. Paul's Epistles, and other places of the New Testament, among the most heinous sins which exclude out of God's Kingdom, and so Damnation being threatened to it more than ten times in the New Testament. Yet because many of the Heathens, who acknowledged Adultery to be a grievous sin, made light of single Fornication, and thought it a matter of nothing, and scarce any sin at all; Therefore the Apostles, to give an Antidote for the present to this conceit, and to prevent such mischief, do here rank it among those things which they call necessary to be avoided, though the rest but Ceremonial: intending afterward more fully to discover the abomination of that in itself, and so perfectly to root it out from among Christians, as St. Paul afterward doth (as much as any one thing) labour upon all occasions to do, as we touched before; and makes it a matter of absolute necessity to fly from it. XII. 2. Things sacrificed to Idols being Ceremonial, forbidden. A second thing mentioned was Ceremonial, Namely, The abstaining from things offered in sacrifice to Idols; which St. James calls in his sentence, Pollutions of Idols. These were forbidden in the Ceremonial Law by way of Document, to teach them to abominate Idols. Now that this is repealed, in point of Conscience, appears undeniably (notwithstanding this sentence here, Act. 15.) besides other places, by that, 1 Cor. 10.25, 27. where he bids them eat any thing that is sold in the Market, or that was set before them at a Heathens house, ask no question for Conscience sake, even though the thing perhaps be thought to have been offered in sacrifice to Idols, as the next verse implies. Yet was the restraint of eating those things necessary for a while, for a double or triple scandal which else might ensue. The first, (and chief intended in this place, Act. 15.) was in reference to the Jews, lest they should detest Christians as favourers of Idols. A second, in regard of weak Christians, who not informed of their Liberty fully, might have judged those that did eat such things, unconscionable; as also some of them be drawn to eat in like sort, even against their Consciences, by others example. A third, in regard of the Heathen Idolaters themselves, who thereby might he hardened in their Idolatrous Worship, as thinking that Christians did in some sort allow of it, since they would vouchsafe to eat of their Sacrifices. And in all these respects, even S. Paul, who in the place before mentioned allows the eating of such things simply, without scruple of Conscience; yet both in that Chapter (and Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 8. though respecting weak Christians) enjoins still a forbearance, so long as the eating might be scandalous to any. And now to us, this particular Law is not only repealed, as I said before, but expired also, there being now no such things among us, as any meat offered in sacrifice to Idols, only the general respects of scandal, bind us still, according as occasion may be, as those places do abundantly urge. A third thing was, not eating things strangled, XIII. 3. Things strangled. and this was also Ceremonial, being specially forbidden, because the blood was not poured out of it, Leu. 17.13. and the repeal of it may be clearly evidenced, not only from the former place, 1 Cor. 10.25, 27. Which is general, but also from the 1 Tim. 4. and Col. 2. which allows plainly all kind of meat; yet this also was necessary to be forbidden, so long as blood was forbidden, of which we come now in the last place to speak. The fourth thing then here mentioned, XIV. 4. Eating of Blood. Repealed, as appears by four reasons. was the not eating of Blood, the most ancient of all the other, being as old as Noah's age, immediately after the flood. Gen. 9 and oftimes urged by Moses, and mentioned in the Prophets with all earnestness, and severe threaten, and gracious promises. Yet that this also is repealed, may appear; not only, First, Because blood, having a nourishing quality, and being by God, in Nature, made fit for meat (as appears by experience) it comes fairly within the compass of those General sentences, allowing all kinds of meat, mentioned before. But specially, because, Secondly, it was, at the very first institution, a document of a spiritual thing, namely, to teach them to abhor shedding the Blood of men, and accordingly it is joined with it, Gen. 9 as if God had said more plainly, Because I will inure you, not to shed the blood of men, I do forbidden you to eat the blood of any Beast, or Fowl, or other Creature, the flesh of which I shall allow you to eat: like that Law, afterward given to the Jews. That they should not muzzle the mouth of the Ox, that treads out the corn, which (says the Apostle) 1 Cor. 9 was written altogether for our sakes; that the Ministers should be maintained. Seeing then the forbidding of Blood was a part of the Pedagogy, of the Infant-Church, of the Old Testament, it is fairly argued, that it is now ceased when that Church is come to age. Thirdly, because, Blood was also expressly made a Type of the Reconciliation of Christ, by his Blood shedding, and in that respect was forbidden to be eaten or drunk, God would reserve it from common use, Leu. 17.11. etc. therefore Christ being now come, and having fulfilled the Type of Reconciliation; that restraint seems to be taken away, and Liberty granted to eat Blood now, as well as we may eat the fat or suet which yet was also forbidden to be eaten under the Law, for the very same reason, because it was reserved for sacrifice, Leu. 3.16, 17. Leu. 17.23. etc. Fourthly, whiles Blood remained forbidden it seemed necessary to draw with it, the prohibition of things strangled, as was noted before: Now all things strangled being allowed (as was noted) blood seems to be so too. XV. The reason of its present restraint. But for the present restraint of this, there was special reason, above any of the other jewish Ceremonies: because of the antiquity of the Law mentioned; and God's importunity to have it observed, so oft as he doth mention it, which is often, in the books of Moses. And Saint james expresses that to be the reason of his propounding that Sanction for the continuance of these things, Acts 15.21. because Moses was read in every City, and so a sudden taking Liberty in these things, would have been greatly scandalous to the jews, who, while their Common wealth stood entire, and they were nationally yet the people of God, were to be specially respected, by the Gentiles, that lived among them, any where. And this, above all the rest, would have been scandalous to them, because they held all Nations, to be tied to the Precepts given to Noah, and abhorred them that observed them not, more than they did for the Ceremonies given by the hand of Moses, or even for circumcision itself, though given to Abraham. But now the Jews Common wealth being destroyed, and God having rejected them from being any more his people, and that Doctrine of Christian Liberty being fully published, Christians that understand their Liberty, need no longer forbear the eating of it; It being repealed upon the grounds forenoted. XVI. Second Rule of a Moral Law, though Positive. And so having dispatched this not unuseful digression to our main purpose, We return to the prosecution of that: and so for the yet better and more clear discerning of Moral Laws, though but Positive, We propound this second Rule [Every Law of God, though but Positive, which is Substantially-profitable for all men in all Ages to be obliged unto, is Moral, that is, Universal and Perpetual, unless a clear and certain repeal of it can be showed in Scripture.] The sense of this Rule is delivered by great Divines, in those usual sentences of [' Tale Praeceptum, qualis Ratio Praecepti.] And, Episc. Winton. op●sc. p. 145. [" Ratio immutabilis facit Praeceptum immutabile.] But because those Expressions are liable to Exceptions, and have been excepted against by divers Disputers in this Question: We rather choose to deliver ourselves otherwise, and as we have set our Rule down: whereby we conceive, the usual Objections against those Sentences are sufficiently prevented, or may be readily answered. And this, as we suppose, will be clear, when we have a little explained the Terms of this Rule also, and added a few grounds for the confirmation of it. 1. Then, by Profitable, we understand that, XVII. Explained, 1. What is meant by a Profitable Law. All the Laws of Nature are undoubtedly profitable. And some may become so, which are but Positive. XVIII. 2. How it becomes profitable. 1. As a supply of Wisdom. which being practised, not only possibly or probably may, but certainly and infallibly doth tend to the securing and advancing, either 1. of the glory of God, and the good of Souls, (which go ever together) or 2. the general good of humane society: or 3. even a man's own personal good, in regard of his body, and outward condition: According as the concernment of the Law looks at any one, or more of these; and the more of these it looks to, the more profitable it is, and the more certainly Moral and Perpetual. 2. It is to be considered, how a Law, that appears not to be of absolute Necessity, and so not properly Morall-Naturall, in the specialty of it, may come to be so profitable to any of the ends forementioned: and that we conceive may be in a threefold respect. 1. As it may be a happy supply of Wisdom to men, in limiting or bounding those things, that (even necessarily) must be limited some way, and which Man's wisdom, specially as now corrupted, is greatly, if not altogether, unsufficient to set the bounds of; and wherein yet, if there be not a wise determination, there may be a very great prejudice to some or other of those important ends. Herein now, the wisdom of God, being uncontrollable, interposing itself by a Law, both makes that Law, and assures it to be undeniably profitable. 2. XIX. 2. As a remedy of Unwillingness. As it may be a sufficient remedy of men's unwillingness to practise that which is so profitable. Experience shows, that our want of Zeal to God, and our own Souls good, and want of Charity one to another, or even of constant respect to our own true Natural good, betrays us to sundry faults, where we are left at liberty, without any express Law of God. The Laws of Men, even though Penal, being not strong enough to hold us in, in many things; and not able to reach to many others. And though it be true, that God hath given a general command to obey Superiors in lawful things; yet is that Command so agitated by Disputes of men of all sorts, that in conclusion it is exceeding little practised any where, unless it be in those things which a man's own mind consents to be every way profitable for himself, which very rarely happens. Therefore the unquestionable Authority of GOD, giving out a Law in any particular, not only silences all Disputes, but awes all Consciences, (far more strongly, and immediately, than the best Law of Man can do) even of those that are unwilling, if they be not altogether hardened, or asleep: and so secures the Practice, to the fullest advantage, according to the nature of the profitableness of the Law. XX. 3. As securing liberty to the willing. 3. As it may be a sufficient securing of a desirable Liberty or Privilege to the willing, to practise that which may be profitable in any of the respects forenoted: or to forbear the contrary. And in this also, experience shows abundantly, That when things are left more at large, many are interrupted, and many altogether hindered from those things which they greatly desire to do, and which would be really profitable to be done; and are oftentimes not only tempted, but even forced, in a sort, to do contrary to what were so profitable to be done, if they had clear liberty, from sufficient Authority. Therefore, here again, the undeniable Sovereign Authority of God the Lord of all, comes graciously to authorise by that Law, such to enjoy their desired freedom, and to plead his pleasure for their liberty to so good purposes; and withal, gives them assurance, that if they do suffer any outward inconvenience from men, or otherwise, himself will recompense it to them again, at least unto their souls: and so the Law is still most undoubtedly profitable. XXI. 3. What is meant by Substantially Profitable, To difference it. Thirdly, Now by substantially-profitable, we understand such a Law, whose utility flows not merely from the absolute and almighty pleasure of GOD the Lawgiver; though his Wisdom and Authority be the prime and principal cause of all profitableness of any Law, (and so of these, as we discoursed but even now.) But it ariseth partly from the nature of the Practice or Forbearance, and so from the matter of the Law, in itself, according to Reason, and humane judgement. And so by putting in this word, we difference the Laws we now speak of. 1. From all the Ceremonial Types and Documents forespoken of, XXII. 1. From Ceremonial Types, etc. even that of not eating blood, etc. For we deny not, but in as much as God appointed those for a time, they were for the time, in that consideration, profitable unto those Typical ends, and so (reductively) to his Honour, and Souls good. But this was not in the nature of the Observances themselves, or the substantiality of the matter of those Laws towards God's honour; but merely in regard of his Pleasure, appointing them for that time. And therefore the Apostle speaking of them generally, and giving a reason of their change and abrogation, saith, [It was for their weakness and unprofitableness, Heb. 7: 18.] But the Laws we speak of, and of which our Rule proceeds, are only such as may be found to have in themselves, and the nature of the things, (if warrantably practised, though not peremptorily commanded) some substantiality and reality of profitableness: But much more being commanded by God himself, for the Reasons expressed. 2. This word Substantial, differences Laws of this kind, XXIII. 2. From any annexed Circumstance. (viz. Morall-Positive) in regard of their Substance, from any Circumstance annexed to them, even though it were at their first delivery, and namely from the Particularity or Individuality of the Object of them (as suppose, the Law of Tithes to be of this kind, the Particularity or Individuality of it, in respect of Cattles, (Leu. 27.) was the 10 th'. or last of 10. that passed under the Rod) which in reference to the nature of the Law, is plainly but a mere Circumstance, and no ways of the Substance of it, nor conducing to that universal and perpetual Utility, which flows from the Matter and Substance, (which in that of Tithes, was the paying God a tribute or rent of their estates, multiplied by his blessing; and was afterward by Him applied to the maintenance of his Ministers, Num. 18. Unto which ends, the Proportion, viz. a tenth part, was plainly profitable, but the Order, the tenth under the Rod, not at all, but merely at God's pleasure.) And therefore, while that Particularity or Individuality, being a mere Circumstance, comes to be abolished or changed, the Law itself, in its substance, may be perpetual, as being perpetually profitable. XXIV. 4. Unless a clear Repeal be showed in Scripture. 4. We add in the last place, Unless a clear and certain Repeal of it can be showed in Scripture. This we put in, 1. That we may eternally reserve to God the honour of his Sovereignty, in taking away, as well as in making any such Positive Laws, at his pleasure: and of his infinite Wisdom, who may see cause for that, which we see none for; and so if he declare any Law repealed, though we should otherwise have thought it substantially profitable, yet we will not argue it perpetual, contrary to his express pleasure manifested unto us. 2. But then, we mention a clear and certain Repeal, that such Laws, as we speak of, may not be rejected upon slight and easy pretences, or such general intimations only, which (according to the manner of interpreting Scripture) may well bear another sense; and so may leave such Laws so substantially profitable, wholly untouched. In a word, if the pretended Repeal be questionable upon grounds from other places of Scripture, We conceive, that the Substantiall-Profitablenesse of the Law in controversy, being perpetual for all men in all Ages (as we say) doth argue, that such a Law is not included in the Repeal, N. B. but remaining in its strength, among the Perpetuals. 3. We here make no mention of Expiration, as we did in the former Rule; because the Perpetual Substantiall-Profitablenesse of the Law, doth directly contradict the Expiration. It must then be in force as Perpetual, unless (as we said) a clear and certain Repeal of it can be showed in Scripture. And so these things, being thus explained, we suppose a few words may suffice to confirm this Rule, considering the Proofs formerly laid down to establish the foregoing Rule. XXV. 2. The second Rule proved, 1. by the former Rule. For if every Law written be Perpetual (though Positive) which is not after found repealed by God, or expired in the nature of it; and the substantialitie of the Profit of the Law evinces it not to be expired, and withal distinguishes it from the Ceremonial Types and Documents, (which are the main, if not the only subjects of a Repeal) what can be pretended, why we should conceive it to be repealed, unless it be clearly and infallibly mentioned in Scripture to be no longer in force? Let a man study to say what he will, or can, if it be to the purpose, to show any Law (contended for by others to be Moral) not to be Perpetual; It must argue it some way inconvenient and prejudicial, as a real (and unnecessary) burden to us now: And this than will discharge it out of the rank of the Laws we argue for, which we all substantially-profitable for all men in all ages: for inconvenient and prejudicial are contradictory to substantially-profitable. If therefore any who excepts against a Law as not perpetual, can prove it really inconvenient and prejudicial to be observed, we dispute not for it in this Rule, but relinquish it, as out of out intention. But on the contrary, if we can prove any Law so substantially-profitable, as we have discoursed; then all allegations of its Inconvenience and Prejudice will be frivolous and vain, and the Law will be found perpetual, as the Profit of it is. Only we must a little carefully observe, XXVI. And cautioned. [That if the substantiall-profitablenesse of any Law, argued thereby to be perpetual, do concern Religion, that is, God's honour, and the good of Souls: A worldly inconvenience, or some outward difficulty attending the observation of it, will not be sufficient to discharge it from being of perpetual obligation:] For as much as God and our Souls are undoubtedly to be preferred before any worldly convenience or inconvenience: And likewise by reason of our present corruption, there is scarce any Law of God (even of these that are Morall-Naturall) but the observation of it is often, if not perpetually, attended with some outward difficulty and worldly inconvenience; which is one main reason that makes self-denial (namely in carnal and worldly respects) to be the first lesson of Christianity and Godliness. 2. In like sort, [If the profit of the Law concern the general good of Humane society, even in worldly respects; then a man's particular worldly inconvenience or difficulty, (or burden) in the observation of it, is not sufficient to discharge that Law neither from being of perpetual obligation:] For as much as a private and personal convenience or benefit must give place to a general or public; and one, or a few, must be contented to suffer some inconvenience, rather than put many (or all) to a like, or greater prejudice. 3. Withal, that though God in his gracious indulgence hath allowed the intermission of some of his services, (and so dispensed with some of his Laws that concerned himself) in a particular case of Necessity, for the good of men's bodies; and so allowed to do such things, in these cases, as in a Direct and Natural (that is, Physical) consideration, are necessary for the Body's safety and good, (or even for the preservation of the lives of Cattles, and showing them mercy; Or saving from present, and otherwise inevitable destruction of any of a man's goods.) Yet [The hazard, or even certainty of Persecution, though to the loss of all a man's substance, or even of his life, is no sufficient ablegation to discharge any profitable Law concerning God, and the Soul: so as the pretence of such inconvenience of Persecution, to be undergone in or for the observation of that Law, should argue that Law not to be in force now.] For as much as 1. even all the undeniably Perpetual Laws, (those that are most Morall-Naturall) whether belonging to the first or second Table, as the not worshipping other Gods, or the not murdering an innocent, or not committing Adultery, Incest, or Sodomy; might be, and would be made void, upon this pretence, That they were inconvenient Laws, and prejudicial to men's lives, in such and such cases. 2. We find also, that Daniel, in that case of Testimony, and hazard of Persecution to extremity, would not forbear his three times a day solemn Prayers, and that upon his knees, in his Chamber, and his windows open toward Jerusalem; though he knew his enemies might by that means surprise him, and accuse him, and cause him to be cast into the den of Lions: yet did he hold himself bound to the Law of Outward Worship, daily, and even in that open manner, (though the looking toward Jerusalem was but a Ceremony ordained by God upon Solomon's prayer, 1 King. c. 8.9.) 3. Also the Maccabees did not think that Persecution did (or could) discharge even the Ceremonial Law of not eating Swine's flesh; but for it endured all extremity of Torments, as the Story relates, (and for it they are ranked among the Worthies of the Old Testament, who lived and died in Faith, Heb. 11.) Much less than can any such hazard, or even the enduring of Persecution, be counted such an inconvenience, as should suffice to disprove a Law substantially-profitable (for God's honour (specially) and Souls good) from being Moral and Perpetual, unless (as we said at the first mentioning of the Rule) God have clearly and certainly repealed it in his Word. XXVII. 2. By further Reasons Men continue profitable Laws. The further proof whereof we thus briefly lay down: 1. We find, that among men, nothing moves a wise, and just, and gracious King or State to take away any Law (though not made by themselves, but by their Ancestors, and specially if made by themselves) that they find still profitable for the honour of the Sovereign, and the real good of the Subjects. And that as the Imbecility of Humane wisdom to foresee all future conveniences or inconveniences, makes all Humane Laws mutable in themselves: So only the emergent or seeming appearances of such inconveniences, as were not when the Law was made, makes them be taken away actually, by such as are not Tyrannous nor unwise. Therefore we cannot imagine (unless we find it syllabically and undeniably expressed) that God should do otherwise then perpetuate those Laws, which according to that wisdom he hath (from Reason and Scripture together) vouchsafed unto us, we cannot but judge substantially profitable for us and all men now, as well as they were for his people of old. We know he can never be deceived, so as to mistake the profitableness of any Law: neither can he ever fail in his love to his own honour, or the good of his Church in any generation. Though therefore we still grant, that if it be infallibly certain, that He hath repealed any Law, We are deceived, if we still think it substantially profitable: and must conclude, that by such Repeal he hath pronounced the contrary of it, according to his unsearchable wisdom, infinitely exceeding ours. Yet still (upon the same grounds of his infallible wisdom, and never failing love to his own honour, and his Churches good) we cannot believe any such Repeal, unless it be undoubtedly clear and undeniable: The rather, because,— 2. XXVIII. 2. Laws not substantially-profitable, yet clearly repealed. We find such clear and undeniable expressions in the New Testament, of the Repeal of sundry Laws of the Old Testament, which had apparently no Substantiality of profitableness, (according as we have described it) but their service and profit depended merely upon God's particular appointment; as Circumcision, and the forbearing of Meats, and the offering of Sacrifices for Sin, and many such like; which also had a reality of burden in them, which God was yet pleased to impose upon them, till Christ the promised Seed would come. Yet, I say, God vouchsafed clearly to declare by his Apostles, (and in his Word, in their Acts and Epistles) that he hath repealed these, as now no longer profitable, and as burdensome. Therefore we conceive, that His not expressly naming, nor undeniably including under any general sentence of Repeal, any such Law, as our best and most serious consideration cannot but still esteem singularly profitable, (particularly for His honour, and our own Souls good) is a certain and undeniable intimation to us, that He would have us esteem them still in force, and not repealed. XXIX. 3. The Objection of Christian Liberty, prevented. 3. We conceive, that the most usual Objection and Pretence of Christian Liberty under the Gospel, purchased by the death of our blessed Redeemer the Lord Jesus Christ, is so contradicted by the Explication we have made of Substantially Profitable, that we cannot imagine how it can any way serve to discharge or disprove our Rule: For can that be properly called Christian Liberty, to be lose from the Bond of those Laws, which to observe, is undeniably singularly profitable for the advancement of God's honour, and the salvation of men, or for a general good to Humane Societies, or the like? What is Licentiousness, if that be Christian Liberty? Or is it imaginable, that He who died properly to procure all good to his people, and chief to their Souls, should intent by his death to dissolve the obligation of any such Law, which is substantially profitable for their spiritual good? Were not this rather to bring prejudice to them, and inconvenience, then spiritual benefit? And on the contrary, it is certainly a happy Privilege, and a true Spiritual and Christian Liberty, (worthy to be sued for to God and Christ with all importunity, if it were a matter liable to be prayed for) to have the bonds of such profitable Laws still tying us fast, how willing soever the carnal heart of any would be to be rid of them. And this is the cause, as we conceive, why St. James, speaking of the Law generally which Christians are still bound unto, calls it twice, the Law of Liberty, ch. 1.25. & 2.12. And so a matter of thanksgiving rather, that we are still partakers of the benefit of it, then of complaint of it, or quarrel or dispute against it, or refractoriness to obey it. XXX. 4. Some Laws profitable perpetuated for substance, though some circumstance about it repealed. 4. To all this we may add, that we find God so careful of the perpetuating of some Substantially Profitable Laws, that even when he hath thought good to take away some particularity & circumstance about them, and namely the individual object of them, and to abrogate and abolish that; yet he vouchsafed to continue the Substance of those Laws still under the New Testament: and for that purpose, himself ordained new Particularities, new Individual Objects, whereby those Laws should subsist; and made only a change in the Circumstances, and no diminution nor alteration at all of the Substance of those profitable Laws. Of this I have a double undeniable instance to produce; one of the Ministry, the other of the Sacraments. 1 It cannot be denied, XXXI. 1. In the Ministry. but it is a Substantially Profitable Law for all men in all Ages, [That there should be some men set apart to minister between GOD and his People; and the People submit to them, being appointed of GOD to that office, and depend upon them so far as GOD ordains.] Accordingly, (besides Melchisedek mentioned to be a Priest of the most High GOD, Divines generally hold, that before the levitical Law was given, every Father of a Family had the office of a Priest or Minister of God to his Family, even from Adam's time. in Abraham's time, Gen. 14.) GOD, as soon as ever he took Israel to be his people, had first the firstborn to be his Priests, (Exod. 24.5. & Num. 3. etc.) and afterward the Tribe of Levi; and the Family of Aaron, (besides also his raising up extraordinary Prophets, for part of that office.) But these Levites and Aaronites, though he hath under the New Testament taken away from being Hereditary Ministers of his, and so abolished their Order: yet hath he not left his Church without Ministers; But Christ himself upon Earth, chose, and sent some in that employment, and appointed them to send others in succession, which accordingly they did, (as the Acts and Epistles show) and likewise continually gives gifts to men to that end (Ephes. 4.) and so upon those, who are according to his Word ordained to that Office, lies the Substantial Duty of GOD'S Ministers, even the same for substance that was from the beginning, namely to teach, and pray, and judge the People in things pertaining to GOD, according to his Word: And God's people are bound to submit to them, and depend upon them, (answerable to the rules of the Word) as well, and as much, as they of old were to his Ministers in those times. And all this, because of the substantial profit of those Laws for God's honour, and men's souls; as the terms of Ambassadors, Watchmen, Shepherds, Husbandmen, Builders, Fishers, and the like, do abundantly testify. So that a substantially profitable Law appears to be perpetuated, even where God makes some change about it. And if we consider, that God did once speak to his people generally by his own Majestic voice, (Exod. 20.) and oftentimes of old to Particulars, by Dreams, and Revelations, and by apparitions of Angels: There was no necessity, neither on God's part, nor men's, that such Laws should be made, or any such Office of Men established; But it was only the pleasure of God, and a Positive Law of his, (desired also by the people, as we find Exod. 20. after they had heard that dreadful voice: and in answer thereunto, He promised a succession of Prophets, Vide Calv. in locum. and specially Christ the great Prophet, Deut. 18.) Yet for the substantial profitableness of it, perpetuated by God throughout all Ages; and acknowledged and practised even by all the Heathens. Yet by no Argument can it be proved Morall-Naturall, as I suppose. XXXII. 2. In the Sacraments. 2. The other Instance is yet more (if need be) undeniable, for a Positive Law to be perpetuated, because substantially-profitable for all men in all ages. And that is the Law of the Sacraments, of being Seals for confirmation of a Covenant between God and men. Of this it cannot be said there is any necessity in regard of God, who knows all men's hearts, before, and without this: nor yet absolutely in regard of Men; For all Orthodox Divines hold, men may be (and are) saved without them, if they be not willing contemners of them: They are then necessary, only necessitate Praecepti, not Medii. And the nature of them is such, as that God himself must appoint them, or else they are so far from being necessary or profitable to advance his honour, and Souls good, that they are unlawful to be used: (Men may not make or appoint Religious seals of the Covenant between God and them.) The using then of any such, comes from God's Positive Law. Yet because in his Wisdom and Grace he saw it would be profitable for his Church to have such Seals of the Covenant between him and them: And accordingly, we are able to discourse of a substantial profit of such seals of God's appointment, to strengthen our faith, and engage us the more solemnly and strongly to him, and that from time to time. Therefore God not only gave to Adam in innocence the Tree of Life for a Sacrament, as Divines generally hold: But after his fall, Sacrifices, which had certainly the nature of Sacraments & seals of God's covenant: And now under the New Testament, though he hath abolished the old seals of Circumcision, and the Passeover, (and Sacrifices) yet he hath not abolished the Law of Sacraments, of Seals in general, (though also that Law be not where expressly laid down in the general, but under the particular Seals of each Age) But hath only changed the former Individual Objects, and set up (himself) new ones, Baptism, and the Lords Supper: Unto the Laws of which (even the general Laws of Seals, to be gathered from the Old, as well as the New Testament) All his people are still bound, because of the substantial profitableness, as well, and as much as they of old were, Though not to the specialties which appear peculiar to the old Seals. Still then, we find God Perpetuating, Substantially-Profitable Laws, even although he change some circumstance about them. We will therefore conclude this discourse (and this Chapter) with this Epiphonema from both our Rules. That, XXXIII. An Epiphonema for conculsion. as we being Subjects of the great Lawgiver, dare not plead ourselves lose from any Law of his which we shall find in his Word; and specially not from any such substantially-profitable Law, without we can be sure he hath discharged us of it, (according as we have discoursed of expirations and repeal.) So upon this supposition, We shall not need be overcurious in distinguishing Morall-Naturall, from Moral Positive, for both will come to one effect to us. CHAP. III. Every Law of the Decalogue, is a Moral and Perpetual Law. WE have one Rule more to add, I. The third Rule, Every Law of the Decalogue is Moral. to know a Law to be Moral, though but Positive, and that is, [Every Law of the Decalogue, or every one of the ten Commandments, is a Moral and Perpetual Law.] This Rule we find, doth not pass currant with the contrary party, and only or principally because of the fourth Commandment, which they are unwilling to honour with the title and dignity of a Moral Law; without some qualification or distinction. The others indeed they yield Moral, but not this, as knowing they lose their whole cause, unless they refuse the fourth Commandment. We therefore, who have undertaken the special defence of the fourth Commandment: must take special pains to maintain the whole Decalogue together (and so that Law, as one of the ten) to be Moral and Perpetual, by arguments which are common to all those Laws together. Concerning which we thus proceed. First for the stating of the Question, II. The question stated. we premise this consideration. That by any of those Laws being in force, we mean, that it is in force in the Words of it, according to their Literal and Gramaticall sense, and not in any mystical or Spiritual meaning; or forsaking the words to fly only to a general equity, as some speak. For both all Lawyers say, and reason itself shows: That a Law is no longer in force, than the Words of it are in force: at least those that contain the substance of it. And therefore to forsake the Words, and fly only to a Spiritual meaning or general equity: is in true construction, As well may we say that the whole ceremonial or judicial Law, is still in force, as any command of the Decalogue whose words are not in force, but only a Spiritual meaning, or general equity. to fly from the Law, and forsake it altogether, and pronounce it Void. For the Spiritual meaning, or General equity, are precedent to a particular Law: and have no need of such a particular Law to confirm or hold them up. For they would have been in force, though that particular Law had never been: we mean though those Words (which now are said to be void) had never been given for a Law; and are no less strong when that particular Law is made void altogether. So that that particular Law is altogether made void, when the Words of it are rejected, as no longer obligatory, Therefore we say, by a Law in force we understand the Words of each Commandment, in their substance, and according to the Literal and Gramaticall sense of them, which that we may evince to be true of all the Ten Commandments, we thus argue. III. 1. Argument. From the Testament of the Church in all ages. First, we Allege the Testimony of the Church of God many ways notified. 1. In the Universal usage of the Name of the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, (derived from God himself first, who so denominates, than Exod. 34. Deut. 4. and Deut. 10.) Taken up by all Churches at this Day, and continued through all Ages of the Church unto this day. 2. In putting all of them, in the Words and syllables, into their Catechisms to be taught in the very Words of them, unto all Children and ignorants, (only indeed the Idolatrous Church of Rome, hath left the 2d. wholly out of their Catechisms, as too grossly contradicting their abominations of Image making, and Image-worshipping.) 3. Accordingly, Expounding all of them in all catechistical Sermons and Treatises. Though in them we confess, they do divers of them, Forsake the Words of some Commandments, and particularly of the fourth too much. 4. But further, the Reformed Churches in many places, if not in all, have all the Ten Commandments at large written upon the Walls of their Churches, that he that runs may read them, and learn (even from thence) that they hold them all perpetual. 5. They appoint them to be all publicly repeated in the Church every Lord's day. 6. Our Church of England hath gone beyond all in this, This was penned while the book of Common Prays was in use in the Church, and highly magnified by those who are Adversaries in this Cause: against whom it still remains a convincing Argument. requiring, besides all the former things, 1. A promise of the observation of them by the child that is to be baptised, (viz. from the Sureties in the child's name.) 2. The Sureties that present the child to Baptism, by a particular charge after it is baptised, That they see it be taught, as a chief necessary thing, the Ten Commandments in the English tongue. 3. After the solemn public rehearsal of them severally and distinctly, all the Congregation to say, Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this Law. 4. And finally, at the close of all to say, Lord have mercy upon us, and write all these thy Laws in our hearts, we beseech thee. In all which it cannot be avoided, but it must be acknowledged, iv Otherwise guilty of a double sin. 1. That All generally agree in avouching our Rule, [That all the Decalogue is perpetuated to this day: and every one of the ten Commandments, in the very words of it, concern us all as well at this day, as any people or persons in any former age since it was first given] Or else they are very unwise in all this, to say the least that can be. But indeed more must be said: For hence it will follow also, 2. That if the whole Decalogue be not now in force, and that there be not ten Commandments now perpetual, but nine or eight only: and so if the words of any one of the ten be not now at all in force, no more than the Law of the Passeover, or those of the other Jewish Festivals, (as some private men have been bold to speak this kind of language) then is the Church universally in all Ages, and at this day in all parts of the World, undeniably and grievously guilty of a double sin: 1. In laying a fearful stumbling block before all her children, 1. In laying a stumbling block before children. in the very name of the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, there being not so many now to us: And specially in teaching all ignorant persons the words of them all, and most of all, the words of the 4 th'. Commandment, (which are so many and so plain, for but six day's work together, and then a seventh day's rest to be kept holy) which while they hear, and must learn, and repeat the words constantly; they cannot but think, but the very words bind them, and not a mere general equity only, (or we know not what spiritual meaning) far remote from the words: For that they believe, that should only have been taught them now, if that only had been in force; and they not to be troubled to learn a great many words, which do not at all concern them, (there being no such thing to be looked to, as the words pretend commanded by God) and which are only apt to ensnare their consciences in needless superstition and scrupulosity. Therefore we must needs confess, that though the Church of Rome be Idolatrous in making and worshipping of Images, yet are they wiser in their generation, and more true to their Principles, in leaving out the second Commandment wholly, and never teaching it at all to their children, and common people, than those Churches should be (and are) that hold any one of the Commandments, not now in force, according to the words of it, and yet still teach them in their Catechisms, and cause their children to learn them. 2. In taking of God's name in vain. But secondly, hence must also needs be concluded, That they are all also guilty of a fearful taking GOD'S Name in vain, to teach those words for his Commandment, which hath not been his Commandment these 1600 years: And our Church most of all, in making all, from day to day, ask GOD forgiveness for that which is no fault, (for where no Law is, there is no Transgression) and praying to him to incline our hearts to keep this or that Law, and to write all these Laws in our hearts, as His Laws, if any of them be no longer a Law to us, nor to be kept by any necessity of his Divine commandment. What, say we, can this be judged to be less than an horrible taking of GOD'S Name in vain, contrary to the express words of one of the ten Commandments, the Third namely, (immediately foregoing the questioned quarrelled Fourth) which also is undeniably perpetual, even by the Law of Nature. These things we earnestly wish all Disputers, and namely of the Reformed Churches, and most specially of our Church, seriously to weigh, and to put it home to their Consciences, in cold blood, whether they will cast all those imputations upon the whole Christian Church, and upon our own particularly: or how they can avoid it, if a very Heathen were to be Judge in this particular, unless they grant, as we here argue, that all the Commandments of the Decalogue are severally and jointly, in their words and plain sense, universally and perpetually Moral. V Why this Argument is first. And this Argument we have first propounded, not as preferring the Testimony of the Church before the Scriptures, or Scripture-reasons: but a little to balance the Prejudice of Disputers, who charge us with Novelty, and Singularity, and Judaisme, and Puritanisme, (any thing to make our Cause odious) when yet we maintain nothing in this, but what we have been trained up to by our Catechism, etc. and necessitated unto by the forementioned considerations of the Church's recommendation of the whole Decalogue, and all the words of it. And for our part, we must confess, that (besides our Churches particular recommendation of the fourth Commandment, in the Homily of the place and time of Prayer, of which hereafter) the perpetuity of the whole Decalogue is so necessarily involved in all these Acknowledgements, and Professions, and Practices, that we wonder where their Logic, their Reason, or their Divinity and Conscience hath been all this while, that could subscribe to the Book of Common Prayer, and urge others so to it, as they have done, and yet not hold the words of the fourth Commandment perpetual. And if we were of their opinion, we know not which way we should ever dare so much as to read the Ten Commandments publicly, (unless as a story in the 20. of Exod. or 5. of Deut.) much less ever teach any child or ignorant person any catechism (of any of the Reformed Churches) which contains all the words of all the Commandments, (the Fourth and all) thereby to teach them any words which are now wholly out of date. And if the shifts our Disputers have made to evade from the force of this Argument, do satisfy their own Consciences, we shall rather still admire then envy them. To themselves we now leave it. Mean time we forget not the usual grand Objection, That if this be so, than we must still hold to the Jewish seventh day. But that we deny for the present; and there is a proper place reserved for the full scanning of that, to which we refer it. And so proceed to a second Argument, VI Arg. 2. From the eminent privileges of this Law. which we thus propound: [Those Laws (though but Positive) which God in a most extraordinary and singular manner hath honoured and privileged above all other Laws, namely by a most rare and admirable delivering, recording, reserving, are Moral and Perpetual: But such are all the Laws of the Decalogue: Ergo.] To strengthen this Argument, we will first illustrate the Minor in the several parts of it, and then further press and confirm the Major. Accordingly we propound (as we have named) three things, as most rare and singular privileges, wherewith God hath honoured these Laws of the Decalogue, and no other. 1. In the delivery; in respect First, In the Delivery, it was with the greatest Majesty that ever God shown from the beginning of the World, and that again in a threefold respect: 1. Of the Auditory; 2. Of the Terror accompanying it; 3. The Voice. 1. Of the Auditory. 1. For the Auditory, which was the whole multitude of the People of Israel then, six hundred thousand men (besides women and children, to say nothing of the mixed multitude that came with them out of Egypt, Exod. 12.38. and were still among them, Num. 11.4.) All these gathered together at once, (after a three days solemn preparation of them for that very purpose, Exod. 19) to hear this Law of the ten Commandments, and nothing else. 2. The Majesty and terror. 2. For the immediate Antecedents and Concomitants of the Delivery, most terrible Thunders, and the voice of a Trumpet exceeding loud, which so affected their ears, that the people trembled in the very Camp, before they came to the Mount, Exod. 19.16. and most frightful lightnings, and fire, and the mountain of Sinai altogether on a smoke; which so affected their eyes, that they afterward cried out, This great fire will consume us, Deut. 5. And the whole Mount quaked and shaked so, as with the terror of all together, even Moses himself said, I Exceedingly fear and quake, Heb. 12.21. 3. The voice of God himself. 3. For the Voice delivering those Ten Commandments (and no more) most dreadfully great, and said to be, in a special manner, the voice of GOD, which they that heard it, desired and prayed never to hear any more, lest they should die. Nor was there ever since the World's foundation till that day, nor since that day to this, nor ever shall be again, till the last day, the day of the World's dissolution, (when an account shall be taken of the transgressions of this very Law) such a concurrence of wonders, in so mighty an assembly; so Majestical a Preacher, and so terrible a combustion and concussion of Heaven and Earth, the while these Laws were delivering. VII. 2. The writing of them by God himself. Secondly, These Laws being thus pronounced & given out, God in the next place takes a most singular order for the recording of them, trusts not Moses himself with the writing of them, but a first and second time Himself writes them, and that upon two Tables of Stone; and the second writing is more observable than the first, as more abundantly testifying, that God meant to have it observed, that Himself would write these Laws, which yet He did to none else besides these: for though he put Moses to hue new Tables of stone, Exo. 34. (after that he had broken the first, in zeal and indignation against Israel's idolatry in the Golden Calf, Exod. 32.) yet he puts not over the writing upon the Tables to Moses, but Himself, we say, with his own finger (as the Scripture phrase is) did write them again, and so (again we say) He never wrote any other Laws besides these. Thirdly, When they were thus written, VIII. 3. The reserving them alone in the Ark. He doth not (as we may say) trust any Man, or Men, with the keeping of them, but takes a most singular order to have them most remarkably under His own custody, His own hand or wing; for He appointed an Ark to be made, on purpose to keep them in, which Ark was the principal sign of His presence, among that people, until the Babylonish Captivity, and his prime Ordinance, and called his glory, his face, his strength, in divers places of Scripture; and was also covered with the Mercy-seat or Propitiatory, which was a most singular Type of Christ. In this Ark were these Laws kept, and no other, nor nothing else: as to intimate, that of all the Laws, He took most care for these. And so, giving to these Laws first (of any number of Laws together) the Title of His Covenant, and of the Testimony, See 1 King. 8.6.21. (and though other Laws afterward were taken into the Term of His Covenant, and the Scripture mentions His Testimonies in the plural, yet there was somewhat eminent in these, as being first so entitled, and so most properly those terms belonged to them.) From thence was the Ark called the Ark of the Covenant, and the Ark of the Testimony; and even the Tabernacle called the Tabernacle of Testimony, as implying still, that these were the chiefest Laws, which he most regarded of all that he gave out to men. And thus we suppose the Minor is sufficiently confirmed. And by considering of all these together, the Major may be put out of all just Question; in as much as it cannot (we suppose) with any reason be imagined, that God, intending to make some of his Laws perpetual to the world's end, should single out these Ten from all the rest, and give them this pre-eminence in all these respects, as He doth, above all others, and call them (together) again and again, the ten words, (the Decalogue) and not mean to make them, and every one of them perpetual: As also declare, that even by these very things, He would have them all to be taken for perpetual, by all his people, until the World's end. Each of these Prerogatives (single) hath a great weight in it, to recommend these Laws; But all of them together do make such a strong chain of obligation, and do so wonderfully difference these from all the rest, as that we cannot but think that any conscience, that desires to give God, our great Lawgiver, a good account of his obedience, and holding himself bound to any of the Laws of God, had need to produce a most certain demonstration, against any of these Laws, to prove it to be repealed, if he will reckon himself no longer tied to it. We say, he had need have a demonstration, not merely against any circumstance annexed to any Command, or any particularity belonging to it; but against the body, and substance, and formal words of it: which because we have not yet met with in all our Disputers books, we dare not count ourselves lose from the bonds of any one. And what they say against the Fourth in special, we shall hereafter consider in due place. Mean time we forget not that there are Exceptions against both the Propositions of this Argument, IX. The Argument confirmed, by which we shall speak to, when we have first produced a further Testimony to confirm our Major: 1. A Prophet; 2. An Apostle; 3. An Ancient Father; and 4. One of our Adversaries. 1. The Prophet Jeremy. 1. The Prophet is Jeremiah, who, in the name of God, ch. 7.21. thus calls for obedience to these Laws, as preferring them far before Sacrifice, etc. [I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifice; But this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey my voice, etc.] Now what is properly the voice of God, distinguished from the law of Sacrifice, and the like ceremonious commandments, but the Ten Commandments, which were delivered by the voice of God? And because they were His voice, therefore they were of singular and perpetual regard. 2. The Apostle James. The Apostle is St. James, who in the 2. chap. of his Epistle, urging to the obedience of all the Commandments of the Law, one as well as another; and saying, that otherwise, he who offends in one point, is guilty of all, ver. 10. That we may be sure to know what Law he means, Jam. 2.10. explained. he instances in two of the Commandments of the Decalogue; and to prove his saying good, he alleadges this Reason for it; That He who spoke one of these, spoke also the other, ver. 11. [He (the same God) who said, Thou shalt not commit Adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill, etc.] Where plainly he doth two things: One is, that [He makes all the Laws which GOD spoke together, (as He did these two he names) to be Perpetual alike; because they were spoken alike (one as well as another) by the same Lawgiver GOD, at the same time, and in the same manner.] The other is, that [He makes this an argument of their Perpetuity, that GOD did speak them:] Which must be understood of his speaking of them in a singularly Majestical manner, as we have showed above. And we say, that whosoever shall go about to interpret the word [said] of any other kind of speaking then this, (if referring it to God) will wholly make void the Apostles argumentation, and make him bring for a proof that which had no strength at all in it: For (thus) a Ceremonious Jew might have retorted this Argument upon him; He that keeps not Circumcision, breaks the whole Law; For He that said, Thou shalt not commit Adultery, said also (even to Abraham, long before He gave that Commandment to Israel) Every man-child among you must needs be circumcised. What answer can now be made hereunto, to preserve the authority of the Apostles argument, but this, That he means it of GOD'S speaking in his Majesty, when He delivered the ten Commandments: And so whatsoever He said at that time, and in that manner, doth stand still in force, and even by virtue of such a Majestic speaking and delivery of it. But of other kinds of speaking it holds not. But if any object, that the Margin of the Text reads it, And vindicated. That Law which said (and that the Article (ὁ) will agree to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is expressed in the verse before, as well as to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is not named) we answer; This variation will neither prejudice our cause, nor our Argument at all, if it be rightly considered. For of what Law speaks the Apostle? It must needs be granted, of the written Law. Where say we either in the Book of Moses at large, or particularly in the Decalogue; and so in the two Tables of stone. Not the former; for then the forementioned Ceremonious jew, might again have come upon him with this: That Law which saith, Thou shalt not kill, saith also, Thou shalt not eat swine's flesh; so by eating swine's flesh, a man is a transgressor and breaker of the whole Law; For this is as well found in the Law of Moses, written by him, as the other: Therefore of necessity, it must be meant of the Decalogue, the Law of the Ten Commandments, considered as one Law together, and so, though the several Commandments be so many distinct branches, with reference to each other; Yet are they joined, in one bulk, and body together, as one perpetual Law, as spoken altogether, and written altogether; and that in such a manner, as no other Laws were: Neither will it be possible to satisfy the Apostles drift, and make his argument good, unless we thus interpret it. And therefore we must needs take Liberty, to account, both Papists transgressors, for breaking the 2d. Commandment: Because he that said (or that Law that said) Thou shalt have no other Gods but me; said also, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image. And so our adversaries, transgressors, for breaking the fourth Commandment: Because he that said (or that Law that said) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, said also, Remember the Sabbath Day to Sanctify it, etc. Prim. p. 180. 181. Nor is this place eluded; by the answers, which one of our adversaries attempts, or rather makes a show, to give it: For he meddles not at all, with the Force of the Apostles argumentation; But insists principally upon the words, of offending in one point; having first denied the inobservation of the Sabbath, to be, under the New Testament, a sin, because the Law, so fare as it commands the Sabbath, obligeth not any more. Mean time he touches not at all, in his answer, the strength of the reason, whereby the Apostle proves his sentence: But contrary in the allegation of our argument, he enervates both it, and the Text itself particularly, (viz. The scope of it) namely, by altering the Apostles words, and instead of instancing in two Commandments of the Decalogue, as the Apostle doth, vers. 11. (wherein we place the strength of our argumentation, as we have said before) he only generally saith, and that in another Character than the Text is in (as if it were our inference, not the Apostles) [The same God which enjoins the one of these Points, hath enjoined all the rest.] By which general expression, because a heedless reader may happen to be deceived; we make bold to ask him, what points be those the Apostle means? Did not he himself say for us, that he speaks of the Law of the Decalogue? (and if he would deny it, the instances, vers. 11. will constrain him again to grant it) whereupon we urge him thus, further. If Saint James speak of the Decalogue, then of the words of the Decalogue, as God said them (or as the Law said them) as they were spoken by God, and written by him. And if so, then either he must deny (the fourth Commandment, to have been with the rest, spoken by God, and written by him) or deny Saint james his argument, (that because one Commandment of the Decalogue binds now, therefore another doth;) or deny his own denial, that the fourth Commandment in the very words of it is now in force: let him take his choice. And if now himself or any for him think to urge us by the same argument, to the old Jewish seventh Day, as commanded by the fourth Commandment, which they do oft, and continually, we must as oft and continually deny, that it was commanded in the Decalogue directly, and as the substance of the fourth Commandment, and of this we shall give good account in due time and place. Mean time, we let pass the residue of what he saith to this place of Saint james, because it goes altogether upon that supposition. And counting ourselves to have made good our two first Testimonies, of the Prophet and Apostle; we come to a Third, of an ancient Father. Namely, Irenaeus, who thus speaks for us [God, 3. Irenaeus. ●. 4. c. 31. the better to prepare us to Eternal Life, did by himself proclaim the Decalogue, to all the people, equally, which therefore is to be of full force amongst us, as having rather been enlarged, then dissolved by our Saviour's coming in the flesh.] Upon which words, the Historians evasion, is frigide, and flash, when thus he glosses. Hist. of Sab. Part 1. p. 66. [Which words of Irenaeus, if rightly considered, must be referred to that part of the fourth Commandment, which is indeed Moral; or else the fourth Commandment must not be reckoned, as a part or member of the Decalogue, because it did receive no such enlargement, as did the rest of the Commandments, by our Saviour's Preaching, but a Dissolution rather, by his practice.] But this Gloss corrupts the Text, making an exception, where the Father made none; and besides, it proceeds upon a misprision of the sense and scope of that Commandment, supposing the seventh day Sabbath, to be directly commanded in it; and one in seven to be but Ceremonial: whereas the contrary (we hope) shall be manifested in both: which if it be done, this Commandment hath as well received enlargement, as the rest, By the substitution of the Lordsday, in stead of the old Sabbath, and the Religious observation of it. But of this, in time and place convenient. 4. The adverse party themselves, C. D. p. 8. Lastly, One, even of our Adversaries, thus pleads our cause: [The Precepts of the Moral Law are summarily comprehended in the Decalogue, which have this Prerogative peculiar to them, that they were delivered, not by Moses, but by God himself, and by him written in Tables of stone, and preserved in the Ark, to show their degnity above others, and to note out the Perpetuity (note that) of observance which was due unto them.] This is an ingenuous confession, if he would be constant to it: But whether it be his misprision, or his misdevotion to the fourth Commandment, he afterward comes in with his Exceptions, That this is to be understood of the Decalogue, as far as it is Moral. Though in so saying, he doth either expressly contradict himself, or speak nonsense in one of these Assertions. But because this Exception lies chief against the fourth Commandment, we will remit it thither: And now proceed to consider the common Exceptions against the two Propositions of this Argument of ours, which are these that follow in the next Chapter. CHAP. IU. The Exceptions to the former Argument, Answered. THere are many Evasions attempted to scape the force of the Argument laid down in the former Chapter, from the peculiar Privileges wherewith God was pleased to honour the Decalogue above all other Laws. Herein the learned B. of Ely is most abundant; therefore we must principally encounter his. And his Exceptions lie against both Propositions. 1. Against the Minor he excepts two things. I. Except. 1. [It is doubtful (saith he) whether God himself spoke these Laws, or an Angel, etc.] Sol. 1 1. Moses, who wrote the story, makes no doubt of it: his words are express: [GOD spoke all these words, Exod. 20.1.] And v. 22. [The LORD said unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: You have seen that I have talked with you from Heaven.] Accordingly so Moses tells us again, Deut. 5.4. [The LORD talked with you face to face, in the Mount, out of the midst of the fire.] And ver. 22. [These words the LORD spoke unto all your assembly, etc.] Moreover, doth he not put a great deal of Emphasis upon GOD'S speaking, Deut. 4.32, 33. [Ask now of the days that are past, that were before thee, since the day that GOD created man upon the earth: and ask from one side of the Heaven to another, whether ever there hath been any such thing as this great thing is? or hath been heard like it? Did ever people he are the Voice of GOD speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live? 2. When did ever any Created Angel say, [I am Jehovah Thy God] saith not God himself (by the Prophet Esa. 42.8.) [I am Jehovah, That is my Name, My Glory will I not give to another?] And as all the Prophets when they deliver their messages in God's Name, say still [Thus saith the Lord:] So do we not find the Angels exact in reserving to God his Honour, and taking none of it to themselves? (So the Angel that spoke to Manoah, saith. If thou wilt offer a Burnt-offering, thou must offer it unto the Lord, judg. 13, 16.) But here he who delivers these Commandments, speaks as from himself. 3. Is not this inference strong. If God himself spoke to Moses the other Laws, than himself spoke the Decalogue to all the people? As appears by the place forecited Exod. 20.22. where he gins to deliver other Laws. And that this was God himself, seems undeniable from Exod. 23.20, 23. Where he promises to send an Angel, his Angel. Now an Angel sends not an Angel, nor calls another Angel, mine Angel. But only God himself doth. Also Divines usually say, that Angel (of whom also Saint Stephen speaks Act. 7.38.) was Christ, called the Angel of the Covenant, Mal. 3.1. Now surely an Angel sends not Christ. But God the Father only. 4. He who promiseth to shake not the Earth only but also Heaven, Hag. 2. vers. 6. as the Apostle relates it, Heb. 12.26. was the same, whose voice on Mount Sinai shaken the Earth. But that promise is God's unquestionable. Therefore it was God's voice that shaken the Earth, at the delivery of the Law by him. But he urges that Saint Stephen, Act. 7.38. II. Inst. ●, Speaks of an Angel being with Moses in the wilderness, and v. 53. of receiving the Law by the Disposition of Angels, and Gal. 3.19. The Law was ordained by Angels, and Heb. 2.2. If the word spoken by Angels was steadfast, etc. All which places seem to ascribe the speaking of the Law to Angels. Sol. 1 Jun Paral. 92. Lib. 1. In dispositionibus. 1. in mediis agminibus, sive inter mediis acies angelorum stipantium honoris et officij causa imperator●m sinon, etc. We answer 1. For the place Act. 7.38. we have already touched it, and it mentions nothing of giving the Law by that Angel. (Whether Christ, or a Created Angel) but the promise of him was after the Decalogue delivered, as the place expressly shows. 2. for vers. 53. The Original Words are [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Which the learned Junius renders, [You have received the Law in the midst of the ranks of Angels] namely who accompanied God their Sovereign Lord when himself came to deliver the Law; which as it agrees with the speech of Moses, Deut. 33.2. and Psal. 68.17. and so with the Truth of the story. So hath it nothing incongruous to the Words, and reconciles the seeming difference between Stephen and Moses. 3. For Gal. 3.19. the same answer may be made, as it is by the same learned writer, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is to be rendered, [Among Angels] they attending God when he Ordained and Delivered it. 4. That of Heb. 2.2. is not spoken of the Law of the Decalogue, neither is the Word Law mentioned, (nor any circumstance that may fetch in that Law as necessarily meant there) but it is understood of the several messages which the Angels delivered to several Persons under the Old Testament. So that there is no necessity to ascribe the delivery of the Law of the Decalogue to Angels: viz. that their voices were used in the delivery of it. To which purpose also, may be added, that it seems improper that Angels in the Plural Number should have been employed in speaking the Law: For without an extraordinary guidance of God, many speakers at once, would have bred confusion of sounds, and by an extraordinary guidance, one would have sufficed, and why then should many have been employed? Specially when the Israelites took no notice of any employed at all (if any were) but took it as the immediate voice of God. III. Inst. 2. And whereas the B. of E. urges further. [That Christ tells the jews john 5.37. Speaking of the Father, you have neither heard his Voice nor seen his Shape.] Sol. 1 It is easily answered, This is spoken to the jews, that at that time contended with Christ. He saith not, Your Fathers heard not his Voice, But You. For it is also most certain, that at Christ's Baptism, john Baptist heard the Voice of God the Father, and so the three Apostles at Christ's Transfiguration; saying, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. Who else could say so? There is nothing then to disprove Gods speaking with his own Voice, when the Decalogue was given. After all, if any be not satisfied, but that they still conceive that Sol. 2 the Decalogue was not spoken by God's immediate Voice, but by the mediate Ministration of Angels, we yet further add, that this being granted, there remains yet so remarkable a difference between the speaking of these Laws of the Decalogue, and all others, as is undeniably evident by what hath been in the former Chapter discoursed of it, and Moses, as we said in the beginning of this, puts such a marvellous weight upon the very manner of delivery and speaking of them: As that we cannot judge otherwise, but God so Honouring these Laws above all others, He meant to make them sharers in perpetuity with the most lasting of all his other Laws, which he delivered to Moses alone with none of all this state. 2. iv Except. 2. [He denier that the Decalogue was the only thing in the Ark] saying, that the Pot of Manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, were placed there also; and that the Book of Deuteronomy, was placed in the side of the Ark, Deu. 31.26. For the latter, the jewish Masters Sol. 2 tell him, It was placed by the side of the Ark, in a coffer, not Sol. 2 (in) the side of the Ark, that is, not within it. But for the former; not only he, but his Authors cited are mistaken, for the Scripture expressly says, twice at least, that there was nothing in the Ark, but the two Tables 1 Kings 8.9. and 2 Chron. 5.10. And the places that are cited for the particulars, say no more, but that the Manna was laid up before the Testimony, Exo. 16 35. and that Aaron's rod was laid up before the Testimony. Num. 17.15. That is, by the Ark, within the veil, as all the twelve Rods had been v. 4. but not within the Ark. 3. For the Apostles words Heb. 9.4. which seems to place these Sol. 3 three in the Ark, the scruple is somewhat greater. Some there are that say, that the Pot of Manna, and the●…of Aaron, 〈◊〉 at the first placed within the Ark, by Moses, and after taken out by Solomon, and that the Apostle speaks of it, as it was at the first placed within the Ark. But these are overbold conjectures, and contra fidem historiae. Others therefore reconcile this difference better thus. That in the Apostles words, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein) the Relative being Feminine, it may and must agree to the remoter Antecedent (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabernacle) and not to the nearer (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ark) and so it is to be read, in the Tabernacle, were those and those things named. And that the Greek may be so taken, Junius, in his Parallels, gives instances: to which we may add this undeniable one, 2 Thes. 2.9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose coming, etc. where the Relative must of necessity be referred to the remoter Antecedent, unless we will confound Christ and Antichrist. So that to us it is undoubted, that Nothing at all was ever in the Ark, but the two Tables of the Covenant; which Moses put in the Ark at Horeb, as the above cited Texts have it, and so those Laws were most singularly kept by God, and withal, sheltered by Christ the Propitiatory, as figuring, that He should confirm all, (and not abolish any of) the Laws written in those two Tables; as we shall hear more afterward, that He hath expressly done. V Except 3. There are other Exceptions taken to the Major, and they are these which follow. 1. Concerning Gods speaking. [But grant the thing, saith he, that God himself did proclaim the Decalogue, yet this will not confirm those Precepts to have been simply Moral: For what sufficient reason can be rendered, why God himself may not deliver a Positive Precept by his immediate voice, as well as a Precept simply Moral: He spoke to Abraham, to Job, to Moses, face to face; yet that made not all his Dictates simply and eternally Moral. Solut. 1 To this we answer: First, we do not say (nor need we say) that God's immediate voice doth make all the Precepts of the Decalogue simply Moral, that is, Morall-Naturall; It is enough for us, if it make (or show) them to be Positively Moral. Solut. 2 2. We stand not so much upon Gods speaking, as his manner of speaking, to all the people at once, and in so glorious a manner. Solut 3 3. Nor yet is all the strength of our Argument put only upon Gods speaking, but upon his writing also, and putting into the Ark these Laws, and no other. Of which we cannot conceive any sufficient reason can be rendered, why He would (as we may say) take all this pains, and show all this State and Majesty about these Laws, singled out by themselves, but that he intended a great deal of difference, between all these Laws so graced, and at least some of those he vouchsafed none of this honour unto, which what it should be, but Perpetuity, we cannot imagine. For whereas it is further said concerning Gods writing. VI Except. 4. [That Gods writing of some Laws, and Moses writing of other Laws, made not a Formal difference, between those Laws, for many Laws written by Moses, were Properly, and Perpetually Moral, as [Thou shalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart] Leu. 19.17. and divers of the same kind. We answer first, We do not say that God alone wrote Morals, Sol. 1 and Moses only ceremonials, and so that God wrote all the Moral Laws; for it is not denied, but Moses wrote some Morals: But this we say, that God wrote only Morals: not any ceremonials. The Force or Emphasis, lies not simply in Gods writing them Sol. 2 (though all writing, both by God and Man, is intended for continuance of the matter written, viz. Hos. 1.12. jer. 22.30. joh. 19.27.) but also in that he wrote them upon Tables of Stone, the durablest matter, and also reserved them, and none of the other Laws in the Ark, which we esteem too Great a Dignity for a perishing Law. Since then among the other Laws, written but by Moses, in a Book, together with these, some were to be Perpetual; we must needs think that God so singularly, Speaking, Writing, and Reserving These, meant they should continue, as long as any other Laws whatsoever. 3. Those Morals which Moses wrote, were but Comments Sol. 3 upon Gods, and most of them plain Deductions from those Originals; All of them being reduced to the Decalogue, as subordinate Laws to their Heads in every kind; as the Schoolmen have long ago acknowledged, and our Divines do usually express. Again it is excepted [There can be no sufficient Reason rendered wherefore a Temporary Precept, VII. Except. 5. may not as well be written with God's finger, as delivered by his internal Inspiration. Our answer to this is ready; There can no Reason be given, Solut. why God would write any Precept at all, but his own good pleasure: But this we say still, there is not any instance to be given, of a Precept written with God's Finger, but only the Decalogue; (Nor yet any other part of the Scripture, whether of the old, or New Testament, but his Prophets and Disciples wrote all) and why then did He write these? But that He would hereby declare, the Perpetuity of all these Laws. The rather, because there are some other Positive Laws, (as we have noted before) acknowledged Perpetual, which yet were not written by God in Tables of stone. How much more those, that partake in this privilege with other Laws, to be written by God himself, in Tables of stone, etc. VIII. Except. 6. It is further pretended [God writing was His Framing, and creating by his Power, the Externall Letters, and Characters of the Ten Commandments: But it appears by the example of jonah his Gourd, and many other things immediately form, that all such things are not Eternal.] Solut. To this we answer briefly thus: This is nothing to the purpose, For we do not think, the world shall be eternal, because immediately Framed by God's Power; much less jonah his Gourd: But it is another matter to frame the Characters of Laws, which inevitably note out some intention of continuance; and to frame so the Characters of these Laws (and none other) by his immediate Power in Tables of stone: may well argue that none other Laws should be more Perpetual than these; and that is enough for us. [To note out (as one of themselves hath told us) their dignity above others, and the Perpetuity of Observance, which was due unto them.] IX. Except. 7. [Writing in Stone was to note out the hardness of the People's Hearts, not the Perpetual Obligation of the Laws, see Ezek. 11.36. 2 Cor. 3.14. and joshua had Moses Law (wherein were many ceremonials and judicials) upon stone. Ios. 8.32.] Solut. Again we must say, not writing simply in stone; but the Lords writing in stone, argues the Perpetuity of it; what men writes in stone may be perishing, like themselves, even though it should out last the writer. But doubtless if we should see a King, or State, command to have some Laws, and not others written upon stones, or like durable matter, we could not but think, that they meant to have those Laws to be (and be accounted) among the chiefest of their Perpetual Laws; How much more when God shall do it himself? The rather still, because these Laws, were not like those, by joshua written in stone, for every one to read them; But laid up in secret, in God's Privy Cabinet, his sacred Ark. So though the writing of them in stone, might partly note the hardness of the People's Hearts: yet the writing them by God himself, in stone, and laying them so up, may appear to be specially to note out their Perpetuity. But he still goes on, and we follow him. X. Except. 8. [If God's immediate speaking, and writing, argues such Precepts, to be Perpetually Moral, Then, his not speaking, and writing argues others to be Temporary: For proper signs and affections, conclude both Affirmatively and Negatively: But the consequence is false; Ergo the Antecedent. To this we answer first, By denying the sequel: God may write Sol. 1 Moral Precepts, and command others to write Moral Precepts also, and yet God may write only Morals; There is a clear difference, between these two Propositions: Only God writes Morals; and God writes only Morals: The latter may be true; The former is certainly false. 2. The confirmation of the sequel, is Petitio Principij, taking Sol. 2 it for granted, that God's writing is made a Proper sign, or Affection of a Moral Law: A sign it is, not ex natura Rei, but by the good Pleasure of God, who never was pleased to write any other, etc. and therefore it will not hold both ways: God writ this, Ergo it is Moral, God writ not this, Ergo it is not Moral. It is sufficient that God would give us this, as a sign of the Decalogues Perpetuity, that himself did honour it, with his own voice, to all the people, wrote it with his own Finger in stone, and commanded this alone to be put in the Ark; which privileges, were never afforded, to any other Laws Ceremonial, or Judicial; nor the rest of the Morals, and therefore these to be taken to be Moral, at least as much as any that wanted all these Privileges. Others do thus except against this Rule [If the Proposition be of the sound, and syllables of the Decalogue, XI. Except. 9 G. Irons. p, 81. so that whatsoever is written in the letter thereof, is affirmed to be Moral; it is utterly untrue, for what think you of those words in the very front of the Decalogue, I brought thee out of the land of Egypt, etc. are they Moral? If any say these words are a Preface, not a Law, he speaketh nothing to the purpose, pag. 83. for the Proposition is Universal of whatsoever was written in the Tables of stone with Gods own Finger, etc. Our adversaries confess the taxation of the Seventh day to be Ceremonial, though in the very heart of the Commandment, and written with Gods own Finger.] Solut. 1 But to this we say, 1. Our Proposition is not so universal of whatsoever is written in the Tables of stone: But thus, all the Commandments of the Decalogue written in Tables of stone, are Moral; not all the Reasons of those Commandments. A Moral or general Commandment may be pressed on some, to whom it is given by a Ceremonial or special Reason, & contra, without any alteration of the nature of the Commandment. Solut. 2 2. The difference of Laws which we now seek, respects not only us Christians, but the jews also, that God would have them know, and us also, that those Laws were the principal, and most respected by himself, and most carefully to be observed by them, and us. The Preface and Promise, at most, can but intimate, That those Laws were in a special manner given to the jews, which is not denied: but the manner of speaking, writing, keeping, may strongly argue, God meant them for Perpetual. Solut. 3 3. And this is acknowledged by C. D. (as we shown above) one of his own side, [The writing in Tables of stone, etc. was to signify their perpetuity and dignity above the rest.] Solut. 4 4. We take what himself grants, for the present, in his first Answer: [All the Commandments of the Decalogue are Moral, but every one in his proportion and degree, and so is that of the Sabbath.] We add, in the letter of it, viz. for one day in seven. As for the proportion and degree, whether Natural or Positive, we now contend not; Only we let him know, that his Adversaries (as he calls them) do now deny, that the taxation of the seventh day (or last of seven) to be in the heart of the Commandment, or written by the finger of God. XII. Except. 10. Another Exception is, That the Ark itself was lost at the Captivity; therefore the Argument is not good: The Decalogue was put and reserved in the Ark; Ergo, perpetual. Solut. To this we say, we did never imagine, that the Ark and Tables must necessarily be preserved till the end of the world; but it was sufficient to denote and signify their precedency and perpetuity, that God was so careful to speak, writ, and reserve those Laws. Though this be no convincing Demonstration to a Caviller, yet to Reasonable men it will, no doubt, pass for more than probable. CHAP. V. Christ hath confirmed all the Commandments of the Decalogue, as perpetual. ANother Argument for the Morality, that is, I. Arg. 3. Christ hath confirmed the Decalogue. Mat. 5.17. the Perpetuity of the Decalogue, may be raised from our Saviour's own confirmation of it. His Authority (to be sure) is beyond all question. And we find Him confirming it to continue to the end of the World, Mat. 5.17, 18, 19, 20. Thus we argue: [That Law which Christ himself hath ratified to continue to the end of the World, is Moral and Perpetual. But Christ hath so ratified all the Decalogue in the place forecited. Ergo.] The Minor is that alone which we are required to prove; which we conceive to be certain, from no less than 6. Grounds laid down in that place for the Confirmation and Ratification of it. 1. He takes heinously, and cannot endure, II. The Text explained. that it should be thought [He came to destroy the Law and the Prophets.] Where by the Law, He means the Moral Law, (of which the Decalogue was the sum and substance) and by the Prophets, the Precepts and Doctrines of the Prophets, who were the Expositors of that Law, clearing the meaning of the Law in sundry particulars, and backing it with applicatory reproofs, and particular threaten and promises. That He came to destroy these, and make them of no force or obligation, 1. Libertines were willing to conceit of Him; And 2. The Pharisees were likely to impute to Him; 3. Weak ones might possibly from their speeches conceit. Either, or any, who so spoke or thought of Him, He here checks, and expressly forbids them [To think that He came to destroy the Law or the Prophets] so as to loosen the bonds that men were tied in by them. So the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dissolve, properly notes. 2. In stead of this, He expressly and peremptorily professeth, [He came not so to destroy, to dissolve them, but to fulfil them] Namely, in His own personal observation of them; and so to leave them still in force for perpetuity, for others also to observe after His example, which He often elsewhere propounds as an example for others to imitate and follow, even all that mean to be His Disciples, and receive good from him. 3. Hereunto He further gives testimony, by adding (His wont solemn Asseveration to confirm the weightiest Truths) [Verily I say unto you.] And what is it that He saith further? [Till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one title shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled.] What would one think could be plainer than these words to confirm, That till heaven and earth were at an end, the Law and the Prophets (the Precepts of both, even the least things of them) should bind men to fulfil them? And this He himself would do for His part, while He lived upon Earth; (as the word [For] joining this verse to the former, shows) And after leave to His Disciples, to make conscience also of fulfilling them. 4. And having so expressed himself, for himself, and laid down the doctrine of the Law's perpetuity to the World's end, generally; He grows (as we may say) more vehement, and proceeds to an application of it to His hearers, and that in a twofold gradation: 1. He denounceth a most severe threatening against all willing Transgressors, and so all willing Teachers of others to be Transgressors of any one of those Commandments, even of seeming smallest importance, (as small as a jot or title) [Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these Commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.] Menacing them with the loss of Heaven, and forfeiture of any right they might seem to have in it, being willing breakers or teachers of others to break them; as the 20. verse also confirms. 5. Adding, secondly, a most gracious Promise to so many as should carefully and conscionably, by life and doctrine, honour every one of the Commandments. 6. And 3. Finally, He applies all to His Hearers particularly, with special opposition to the doctrines and practices of the Scribes and Pharisees: [For I say unto you, that except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharises, you shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.] The Scribes and Pharisees were outwardly exceeding strict in observing the Letter of all the Commandments. But in their interpretations of them, and inward affections concerning them, they were too too lose. Therefore Christ gives a severe comminatory warning, not only of matching them in outward obedience to the very words of the Commandments; but of exceeding them in the right acknowledgement of the latitude of them, and answerable care even of inward observance to them, (as His following Sermon expresseth many particulars) Or else they must never look for any share in the Kingdom of Heaven. In a word, before we come to the Exceptions, III. The Context considered. we desire the Reader but to note the evident connexion of these 4 Verses, by the word (for) v. 18. and (wherefore) v. 19 and again (for) v. 20. and so the light which each of them afford to the other, to secure the whole from all cavils. And so, 1. What he styles the Law and the Prophets, v. 17. He calls only the Law, v. 18. & v. 19 These Commandments: and v. 20. Mentions Righteousness, namely of Practice and Conversation; which is in obedience to the Commandments of the Law. 2. That which He calls a jot or a title of the Law, v. 18. He calls one of these least Commandments, v. 19 3. That which he calls destroying of the Law, v. 17. He calls breaking of the Law, and teaching men so, v. 19 4. That which He calls fulfilling, v. 17, 18. He calls doing and teaching, v. 19 and Exceeding the Righteousness of the Pharisees and Scribes, v. 20. 5. Lastly, That which He calls being lest in the Kingdom of Heaven, v. 19 He calls, in no case entering into the Kingdom of Heaven, v. 20. And what now would, or could a man wish for more complete, to ratify the whole Decalogue, which was undoubtedly the principal part of the Law and Prophets: unless He had named it in express words here? or after interpreted every one of those Commandments severally, as He doth divers of them in the following part of His Sermon, even beginning in the next verse. But yet this Argument and Text, as clear as it seems, iv Excep. 1. cannot escape their manifold Exceptions. In Answer whereunto, we shall necessarily make use of those things which we have summarily laid down in the Explication of these verses, without any just imputation of Tautology, being forced to it by their quarrelsome Cavils. First, they say, [Hear is mention made of the Prophets too; C. D. p. 12. And so the Law and the Prophets, B. of E p. 61. is as much as Moses and the Prophets; which is a Periphrasis of the Old Testament, and contained the predictions of the holy Prophets, who lived before Christ: and these He came to fulfil.] Solut. To this we answer first, with respect to the Predictions of the Prophets, pretended here to be also intended. There is not the least Reason in the Text for this Pretence. For, 1. Who did ever doubt at that time, or make any question, whether Christ came to destroy the predictions of the Prophets? 2. What sense is there in this speech, to say, I came not to destroy (or whosoever shall destroy) the predictions of the Prophets, in the 19 verse, and teach men to break them. But of the Laws delivered by the Prophets, both those may be congruously spoken. 3. That the Law and the Prophets are sometime a Periphrasis of the Old Testament, in the Gospel, is not to be doubted; and that it may be so taken here, in a right sense, is not denied; That is, the Law expounded and confirmed by the Prophets. So that by Law and Prophets is meant in substance the same thing, that is, that part of the Prophets which was doctrinally practical, namely, confirming and expounding the ten Commandments, and other substantial Laws of God, which are reducible to them. And this may more easily be received, if we consider, that in the next verses, 18, 19 in one He names only the Law, and in the other only the Commandments: One title of the Law (not the Prophets) shall not pass: and, whosoever shall break one of the least of these Commandments (not the Prophets.) 3. The Instances which our Saviour gives after, in his following discourse, depending upon this, are all in Laws, and not in any Predictions of the Prophets. To conclude: Though it be true, that Christ came to fulfil the Predictions of the Prophets, yet we cannot see the least reason why this should be intended here. V Excep. 2. Ibid. Prim. p. 174. But than it is more strongly suggested [That by Law here is not meant only the Moral Law, but the Ceremonial and Judicial also, and all that is contained in the Books of Moses, these be fulfiled also.] Solut. To this we answer: That Christ came to fulfil the Ceremonial and judicial Laws, is also true, But that he intended them in this place, we take to be most false, for these ensuing Reasons. 1. The whole Sermon of our Saviour in the former part of this Chapter, and in the following part, the Instances which He gives, concern Moral Duties, and Moral Laws; and not one instance of a Ceremonial or Judicial Law can be shown, (which had been requisite, if Chaste had intended them) unless it be to show them now to be abrogated, that is, to be destroyed; as we shall see by and by. Now this is granted by one of themselves, Prin. ibid. [That sometimes, to wit, when a Moral matter is in hand, the Scripture by the Law and the Prophets understandeth only the Precepts of the Law and of the Prophets, pertaining to this Morality. As Mat. 7.12. [All things that ye would that men should do to you, do you even the same to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.] But sometimes, when the speech is of fulfilling of things foretold, or figured of old, by the Law and the Prophets, are to be understood only the Prophecies, and Typick Ceremonies of the Old Testament: as Mat. 11.13. etc.] But we assume; In this place there is speech only of Moral matters, and not of fulfilling things foretold or figured. Therefore by Law and Prophets, is understood here only the Precepts of the Law and Prophets, pertaining to this Morality. Yet see how feign he would elude his own grant: Thus he says. [I say, VI Inst. 1. that by Law and Prophets here, are to be understood not only the Precepts concerning the Moral Duties of this life, but also the Ceremonies of the Law; as may be clearly seen by those words of our Saviour, which are general, I am not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfil them. Now the Ceremonies are a part of the Law of Moses, etc. The conjunction of them in a general matter, such as this is, shows, that by the Law we must understand all that is contained in the book of Moses. Solut. ] But we desire him to consider whether this be not a flat contradiction to what he said before: That when a Moral matter (that is, a general matter) is in hand, the Scripture understands by Law and Prophets, only the Precepts of both, tending to this Morality. And besides, might not a caviller plead the same against his former Instance, Mat. 7.12. and so cast off that Law as Ceremonial? The ground of this Error lies in this, that he fallaciously concludes thus: Christ came to fulfil the Ceremonial Laws, and the Predictions of the Prophets, therefore Christ intended both these in the verses before cited: which is a flat inconsequence; and he goes not about to prove it; VII. Inst. 2. And yet he peremptorily goes on to add, [That the Predictions, Types, and Promises are here as much, nay much more to be understood, then Moral Duties; as may be evidently seen in the words of our Lord, Till Heaven and Earth pass, etc. It is certain that these words, jot, title, or prick, cannot be taken properly, because not capable of accomplishment; but by them Christ understandeth the least things propounded in the Law. Sol. ] But here is no evidence at all, though much confidence: For we say not, that jota or Title are properly taken, but by Christ meant of the least things propounded in the Law and Prophets: but we add, in the Law Moral, of which he only speaks before and after. And exdresly, v. 19 [The least of these Commandments] not these Ceremonies, or these Predictions, or Promises: and that was our Saviour's meaning by those words, jota, or Title. Yet something more he adds. VIII. Inst. 3. [This sense; The heaven and earth shall pass, rather than whatsoever hath been figured, promised, and foretold by the Law and the Prophets shall not be effected and fulfilled; is manifestly more suitable to the words, than this; The heaven and the earth shall rather pass, than the Moral Commandments shall not be kept and executed. Sol. ] It is, we confess, an easy thing for witty men to put pretty fair Glosses upon Texts of Scripture, which were never there intended. The meaning of our Saviour is thus to be conceived [I am so far from coming to destroy the Law, that I came to fulfil it to the utmost title: and heaven and earth shall sooner pass away, than I shall break the Commandments in my own person, or teach or allow others to break them, which were to destroy them.] And that this is His meaning, the 19 verse doth manifest: [Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these Commandments, and teach men so, etc.] As if He should say, I may not break or destroy the Law myself, nor do I teach men so to do; Let others take heed they do not. Now if Christ had meant it of the Ceremonials, which were presently after his death to expire: would he have said thus; I came not to destroy the Ceremonial Law, and woe be to him that shall break it, and shall teach men so? We cannot believe it. Yet still He labours to make good his own Interpretation, by Luk. 16.17. [Where the same words are used; IX. Inst. 4. and the Evangelist showeth of what points of the Law Christ did speak, to wit, of the Types and Prophecies: for in the 16. verse He had said, the Law and the Prophets were until John: where we must understand the word (Prophesied) which St. Matthew addeth, chap. 11.13. And after this, S. Luke addeth these words as spoken by Christ to that purpose; And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, etc. Where by one title are to be understood all the Figures and Predictions contained in the Law and Prophets.] But to this we say two things. 1. The place of Luke and Matthew are not Parallel, The place with Mat. 11.7. etc. is Luk. 7.24. nor were Sol. 1 they spoken at the same time, or of the same matter, as is evident to any eye that compares them together. Therefore it is not necessary that the word Prophesied, must be understood, in St. Luke the word (were) added by our Translation, being sufficient. 2. The matter of which our Saviour spoke before in St. Luke Sol. 2 was Moral, viz. to beat down the covetousness, and Pride, and Scorn of the Pharisees, therefore by his own former grant by the Law and Prophets Luke 16.17. must be understood only the Precepts of the Law and Prophets concerning that Morality. Nor is there the least Colour for any Ceremonial Law, or Prediction, or promise to be intended in this place, Luk. 16.16, 17. etc. But here is one Exception more to our first general answer: Inst. 5. Prim. 176. and others. [That (forsooth) the instances made by our Soviour in the following part of the Chapter are not all Moral Laws. For in the 23, 24. ver. He speaks of Sacrifices and Altars: in the 31. ver. He brings and expounds a Law judicial concerning Divorce, and ver. 38. another judicial of retaliation. This we shall thus discharge: First, in the 23, 24 ver. He speaks Sol. 1 indeed occasionally, of Sacrifices, and the Altar. But doth not bring or Expound any Law concerning those things, much less any confirmation of them; but they are brought in by way of allusion to the Practice of those Times: by the Legal Expressing the Evangelicall service. A thing usual with the Prophets, and useful for their understanding to whom he spoke, who knew as yet no other. For the residue, We say, 2. There is yet no instance of any Ceremonial Sol. 2 Law Expounded by Christ, much less confirmed, nor of any Prophetical Prediction. 3. As for judicials instanced in, If we granted them both such, Sol. 3 we could easily answer; That those which are produced are not brought in for their own sakes, but for the Explication of the Moral Commandments to which they did belong. And then one of them, to begin with (which we desire him seriously to consider) mentioned, not to be confirmed, but rather to be destroyed from this time forth. For the Law of Divorce mentioned ver. 31. Is by our Saviour quite disallowed and disannulled. [It hath been said (viz. by the Mosaical Law by way of indulgence) whosoever shall put away his wife. Let him give her a bill of Divorce; But I say unto you, whosoever puts away his wife, except for fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and he that marrieth her that is put away, commits adultery.] As if he had said, I now put an end to that Law, and bring you to the Law of the Decalogue. XI. The Law of Retaliation why here alleged. As for the Law of Retaliation, If it were certainly a Judicial Law, understanding by Judicial, a Law of the Jewish commonwealth, (contradistinguisht from Moral and Perpetual) we must yet deny that it is alleged formally in this place by our Saviour: But rather, the words he citys were from a profane tradition of the Scribes and Pharisees (whom he undertakes to confute in all this part of his Sermon) that under colour indeed of God's Law of Retaliation, did teach the people, that it was lawful for them, to be their own carvers in private revenge; So long as they went not beyond the bounds of Retaliation; and withal, that they might at least without scruple at all times pursue those that had wronged them, and require the Magistrate to deal with their adversary, as he had dealt with them. Both which malicious glosses, derived from that Law, our Saviour at once confutes, (as contrary to the Moral Law, both of reserving the Magistrates place to himself, and of not revenging one's self, nor bearing grudge, Leu. 19.18.) By saying [" But I say unto you, resist not Evil, etc.] So that Christ doth neither speak against, nor for the Law of Retaliation, nor indeed of it directly and primarily in this place, But only forbids private retaliating, or at the most, malicious pursuit of another, to have the Law of Retaliation executed upon him by the Magistrate. And not at all Expounding that Law, but only occasionally mentions it, as perverted by them. So still it will remain that all the Laws that Christ Expounds are Moral, and so no other are meant in those vers. 17, 18, 19 Proved Moral 1. by Testimonies. whence we fetch our argument. But if this will not satisfy our disputers, we must then further tell them, that we cannot grant the Law of Retaliation not to be Moral. Even themselves dare not deny it, of one branch. Life for life, in case of wilful murder. Learned interpreters shall speak for us in this point. Kemnitius, Musculus, Pareus, Cartwright, upon the place. The a Komnit. Har. p. 575. Est enim naturalis etiam aequitatis ne paene sit maior delicto. Et paulo postca. Manifestissimum igitur et centissimum est; Legem Dei, de publica vindicta Magistratui Mandata, h●c Loco a Christo non Abeleri aut Damnar●. First of these having quoted the text, Exod. 21. Leu. 24. and Deut. 19 where this Law is found, adds, [That it is also Natural Equity, that the punishment be not greater than the fault.] And then recites a saying of Aristotle in his Ethics lib. 5. Describing the Justice of Rhadamanthus in this old verse [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Si quae fecerunt, eadem patiantur et ipsi. If what they have done they be made to suffer.] And a little after he saith, [It is most manifest and certain, that the Law of God concerning public punishment of offenders commanded to the Magistrate, is not in this place Abolished nor Condemned by Christ.] The b Musc. p. 111. Lex ista omnino necessaria erat, et, etiam num est, ad coercendos reprobos, etc. and p. 112. Christus non Legi ipsi, qua nihil potest esse justius, sed perversae Phariseorum opinioni repugnans, etc. Second is yet more plain. [This Law was altogether Necessary, and is so still, to keep reprobates under, and take away evil from God's people.] and a little after; [Christ doth not contradict that Law itself, than which nothing can be more just, but the perverse opinion of the Pharisees.] The c Pareus pag. 121. Non sustulit Christus in judicijs Christianis talionem. Third no less expressly. [Christ did not take away Retaliation, in Christian judicatures. The d Cartwright, Part 1. Harm. pag. 399. justissimum legem iniquissimam reddiderunt, et mel Legis in absynthiam converterunt. Fourth saith that [Christ shows, that the Scribes and Pharisees had drawn the Magistrates duty to every private man's Power,] and so he saith, [They had made a just Law to be most unrighteous,] and afterward he wishes to consider the justice of the Law most accurately fitted to suppress and keep under violence; And again, [As by all men's consent, he is to be punished with death, that hath caused another's death, so it is for a hand or eye— And if this Law were now put in execution before all men, Men would be slower to maim or dismember others.] These Proofs are not bare assertions of the Authors, XII. 2. By reason. but backed with Perpetual Reasons. To which we know not what, besides men's contrary customs, can be alleged to disprove them. In conclusion, whatsoever men talk of the ceremonials and judicials included in vers. 17. we would desire them but to remember that (as we shown) Christ doth even now destroy the Law of divorce, and then let them make sense of this if they can [Till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or tittle of the Law shall not pass, and yet I now destroy the Law of Divorce] which is to put upon Christ a flat contradiction, besides that which reflects upon ver. 19 of which by and by. Therefore we must conclude, if Christ in this Sermon Expound no Ceremonial or judicial, and one Judicial he plainly destroys; XIII. The second proof of the general answer. Then ver. 17. He only speaks of the Moral Law. Our 2d. Proof of our general answer is taken from vers. 19 thus. If our Saviour speak in the 17. and 18. verses, of the Ceremonial Laws, as well as of the Moral, than the Disciples of Christ (and the Church succeeding) must needs run under his sentence in the 19 verse, for breaking, and teaching men to break some part of the Law, of which he spoke. For it is evident the Apostles, St. Paul especially, did break, that is Abrogate, pull down, destroy the Ceremonial Laws, presently after his Death. [If I build again the Things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I have destroyed] speaking of the ceremonials; Gal. 2.18. and many more such places. If it be said, Christ came to fulfil the Ceremonial Laws in his own Person, and so came not to destroy them in his practice. This indeed is most true, but nothing to the purpose, for he did come to destroy them by his Death and Doctrine; by himself or by his Apostles, who (as we said) did both break, destroy, and abrogate them, and also teach men so to do. But take it of the Moral Law only; and he did come, not to destroy it, as well as to fulfil it in his own Practice, that is to confirm it, not only by his Personal obedience to it, but also by his Doctrine, as the vindication of it, from the false glosses of the Pharisees, doth clearly manifest. Now let a reasonable man judge, whether it is likely that Christ speaking before of the Moral Law, or merely Moral matters, would so suddenly, without any just cause, digress to speak of the Ceremonial Laws, and that in such a frame of words, as are, as well false as true. False in one sense, and true in another. Or that he would say, I came not to destroy the Ceremonials, and presently threaten those that should break one of the least of those Commandments, and teach men so; whereas the Ceremonials were ere long to be Abolished and destroyed. And then on the otherside, commend and promise much to them, that should keep them, and teach men to keep them, even those Commandments which were certainly and necessarily to vanish, and pass away. So that this 19 verse alone, had our Saviour said no more, had been sufficient to confirm the Moral Law (whereof the Decalogue is the sum, called often, and in especial manner the ten Commandments) to be in force to the world's end, saying, [Whosoever shall break one of the least of these Commandments, and teach men so, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven,] & contra. For we would ask of what Commandments speaks our Saviour here? Of Ceremonial? Or Moral? Not of ceremonials for certain; for they were to be broken and to be preached down, and the threatening would rather fall upon them that should observe them, and teach them to be observed as necessary Commandments still in force. Therefore he speaks of Moral Laws only, the least whereof might not be broken, or taught to be void, till the world's end. This sentence therefore alone is sufficient to confute, and falls heavy upon Antinomists, who fear not for to teach, that Christ came to destroy, and hath destroyed the Decalogue or Moral Law, as well, and as much as the Ceremonials, whereas he says expressly [whosoever shall break one of the least of these Commandments, and teach men so, shallbe called lest, that is, none, in the Kingdom of Heaven] And let them, who in part comply with them, in affirming the fourth Commandment, to be Ceremonial, and consequently, abolished, consider how they will avoid, the same censure of our Saviour. Let us hear what they say. Thus one would avoid it [Granting them, XIV. Excep. 3. that Christ in those words had regard to the Decalogue only, I answer, that he speaks of dissolving and overthrowing of those Commandments, Prim. p. 178. and condemns all that dare to do it. But to abrogate the Sabbath Day, enjoined by the fourth Commandment, seeing it was a Figure and Type, and that by fulfilling it in himself, and in his faithful servants, the truth thereof figured by the outward Sabbath, to free them from the necessity of the observation thereof, was not a dissolving of i●, etc.] But we reply 1. We say not, Solut. Christ in these words had regard to the Decalogue only, but to the Decalogue primarily, and to all other substantial precepts, explicatory of it, whether in Moses, or in the Prophets. 2. If you grant (what we have proved) that Christ means it of the Decalogue only, or chief, (we now add, If he speak of it at all) you are one of those, that dare to dissolve and overthrow one of the Commandments, and teach men to break them. For what is to dissolve or overthrow a Law, but to make all the words of the Commandment void? Otherwise the Laws of the Passeover, and all the Ceremonial Sabbaths, are not to this day dissolved, nor did the Apostles teach men to break them. The contrary whereunto, is evident to all the world. Now do not you yourself, and others of your side hold the fourth Commandment to be one of the least Commandments, and even wholly Ceremonial, in the substance and letter of it? and teach men expressly [That it is no inconvenience to say, Prim. p. 138. that of ten Commandments in the Decalogue there are but nine Moral, that oblige us now.] Can you then in reason deny, that you break one of the least Commandments, and teach men so? If not, than we desire you, in the fear of God, to consider well, how you will escape our Saviour's condemnation, by your own confession. XV. Inst. 1. pag. 179. Thus you go about it. [Of necessity, the broachers of this argument must avow, that Christ doth not in this place blame all inobservation of the Sabbath, nor establish the observation thereof absolutely and for ever; Therefore this limitation must be added, that Christ's intention is to forbid the transgression, and to command for ever the observation of the Commandment, touching the Sabbath, as far as it may and aught to oblige us, according to the terms of the Gospel, that is, (say you) so fare only, as it commandeth that God's public worship be practised for ever, as it shallbe established by him, and that an ordinary day be appointed for that purpose.] Sol. To this we say. 1. We do not avow, that Christ, in this place, doth blame all or any inobservation of the Seventh Day Sabbath, much less establish it for ever; For we hold, even from this place, (and shall maintain in time convenient) that the Seventh Day Sabbath, was not the substance of the fourth Commandment, but the observation of one day in seven, and this we say, Christ doth, in this place, establish for ever. 2. We add to your limitation, that the public service is not commanded by the fourth Commandment (that is another of your mistakes, as shall in time be manifested) but by other Commandments, though the time of the fourth Commandment, in part, and chief, if it may be, is to be employed in public worship. And therefore when you yield, that Christ speaks of the Decalogue only, it is, in your interpretation, to confess, that Christ hath made void and destroyed one whole Commandment of the Decalogue; which yet Himself denies, and threatens them that shall dare to do it. You cannot avoid this, by saying, He fulfilled in himself the truth of the thing figured by the outward Sabbath, For if He destroyed the old Sabbath, which you say was the substance of that Commandment, and Ceremonial; still it will follow, that He destroyed the Commandment, although He did fulfil the Figure. Think on it. But it is further said, XVI. Inst. 2. [That our Lord Christ passeth most conveniently from the Ceremonies, which the Scribes and Pharisees accused him falsely to destroy, to the Moralities which they destroyed in effect. Therefore I say unto you, Except your righteousness exceed, etc. v. 20.] But 1. This sense is very preposterous; for the whole preceding Sol. 1 discourse was of Moral matters, and therefore He must rather pass from Morals to Ceremonials, then contra. 2. True it is, in the 20. verse He speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees, Sol. 2 but not as accusing Him of the breach of Ceremonials, but rather as accusing them of the breach of Morals, with reference to the 19 verse, [" Whosoever shall break one of the 〈◊〉 of these Commandments, and teach men so.] q.d. The Scribes and Pharisees are instances of what I mean; For they by their corrupt Glosses of the Decalogue, do both destroy and break the Commandments, and teach men so: however they were exact in Ceremonials, and their own Traditions. Except therefore your righteousness exceed theirs, you cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. 3. It cannot be showed, that the Pharisees did accuse our Saviour Sol. 3 as yet for breaking any Ceremonial Laws, except it was for breaking some Ceremonials belonging to the fourth Commandment, in doing some miracles on the Sabbath day. Chemnitius, in his most learned and judicious Harmony upon the Gospels, showeth that the Contests John 5. and Mat. 12.1. etc. and v. 9.10. etc. were all before this Sermon upon the Mount: which being granted, then is the Argument more strong for the confirmation of the fourth Commandment. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law; I am come to fulfil it, and confirm it. Therefore whosoever shall break one of the least of these Commandments, (be it the Fourth, or any other) and teach men so, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. XVII. Excep. 4. C. D. p. 12. There are yet some other Exceptions, as this for one; [If we grant them, that by the Law is meant only the Decalogue, and that our Saviour's fulfilling, and not destroying the Law, was the ratifying and perpetuating of it; we shall condemn the Christian Church, for altering the day, from the seventh, to the first day of the week: which cannot stand with our Saviour's speech, who saith, that not one jot or title shall pass from the Law.] Solut. To this we answer, 1. They that make the substance of the Commandment to be the seventh day, cannot justify by any means the altering of it to the first, but must needs make void the Commandment, contrary to our Saviour's asseveration, [That till heaven and earth pass, one jot or title of the Law shall not pass.] For it is a certain Rule in Laws, When the substance of a Law is abolished, the whole Law is quite abolished. Let him consider it. 2. But if we hold, that the fourth Commandment commands only one day in seven to be our Sabbath, not one jot or title of the Law is passed. And the Church is justified in her altering of the day, having sufficient Authority going before her in designing of the day. Of which more hereafter. XVIII. Excep. 5. B. of E. p. 64. But it is further excepted, [Our Sabbatizers must first of all make remonstrance, that the fourth Commandment of the Decalogue is simply and formally Moral, before they presume to affirm, that the same is a part, jot or title of the Eternal Law, which Christ commanded to be observed to the world's end.] Solut. This is easily answered: 1. It is not necessary to prove it simply and formally, that is, Naturally Moral: It is enough, if we can prove it positively Moral; for himself hath confessed, that there are some Laws positively Moral, which are universal, and bind all mankind, p. 27. as that against Polygamy, and wedlock in some degree. And therefore he plainly contradicts himself, when p. 63. he saith, [That Christ hath freed and delivered the Christian Church from the Eternal observation of all such Legal precepts as were not simply and formally Moral.] But those Positive Laws aforementioned, he saith, are universal, and bind all mankind. And now we infer, If Christ did not destroy, or free men from some other Positive Laws, how is it probable, that He came to destroy or free men from the obedience of any Positive Law of the Decalogue, which is confessed to be meant, at least in some part, by the Law, in our Saviour's discourse. 2. It concerns our Anti-Sabbatizers more, to prove that the fourth Commandment is Ceremonial in whole, or in part, or else we fear they will fall under the heavy censure of our Saviour, for making void more than a jot or a title of a Commandment, even a whole Commandment of the Decalogue, both breaking it themselves, and also teaching others so to do. We wish them sadly to consider it. And whereas it is excepted by some, XIX. Excep. 6. [That Christ in all this long Sermon of three whole Chapters, makes not the least mention of the Sabbath, or fourth Commandment, and so seems to exclude that out of the number of those Laws He professes to ratify.] We briefly answer, 1. That there is no express mention of the Sol. 1 first Commandment, nor the second, nor the fifth; yet no man thinks they are excluded. 2. It is too much boldness in any to prescribe words to Christ, Sol. 2 that unless He mention this or that, they will not grant that He means it, when yet they hear Him speak of the least Commandments, even of a jot, or title. Lawyers warn, not to except, where the Law excepts not. And a man would think, Christ had here sufficiently warned men not to exclude any of the Commandments: But it is not enough with them, it seems; At their peril then be it. We dare not be so witty. 3. We may see reason why He now mentions not the Sabbath, Sol. 3 or fourth Commandment: His scope now was (in this Chapter particularly) to correct the scanty and curtailed Glosses of the Pharisees against the Law. Whereas in point of the Sabbath, their fault was Superstition. This He thought good to encounter elsewhere, as He doth on divers occasions. But now He was in another way, and so contents himself with the general, including it under the Law and the Prophets, which who so reads, will hardly miss, reckoning it a Commandment, and none of the lest neither. We have but one thing more to note, XX. An Animadversion. and we have done with this Argument: and that is, to consider a little some words by one let fall, C. D. p. 14. in resolution of this Text of Scripture. Thus he says: [Christ fulfilled the whole Law by his actual and personal obedience to it, and by supplying the defects of it, that it being unable to justify us in itself, might by the help of His grace, and accession of faith in Him, be able to perform that which otherwise it could not.] To which we say, That the Law should be able, even by the help of Christ's grace, and acceptation of faith in Him, to justify us, Is a Doctrine new and strange to the Reformed Churches, and derogatory greatly to the satisfaction of Christ in his death. The Apostle says expressly, [All men are sinners, and are justified freely by God's grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Rom. 3.24.] And elsewhere he is so far from saying, that Christ enables the Law to justify us, that he saith, [If Righteousness be by the Law, Christ died in vain, Gal. 2. ult.] But it hath been ordinary with these Disputers to let fall now and then such drops of Popish Doctrine as this is, to what end, the World will judge. XXI. The Conclusion, by way of Recapitulation. And now we will draw up the sum of this Chapter, in a few brief sentences. 1. It is clear, that Christ by not destroying the Law, means, not abrogating it, not preaching it to be void. 2. That He speaks not at random of an uncertainty of a Law, about which one might dispute what Law He meant; but of the known Law of God, that is, the Law written, and of the words of it. 3. That He means not the whole Law written by Moses; for a great part of that He did come to destroy, to abrogate and make void: And his Disciples preached it to be void, and Himself, now at this very time, doth so about the Law of Divorce. 4. Therefore He means it properly and undoubtedly of the Decalogue, which was most properly called the Law; though also withal, of those other Precepts which are substantial and apparent explications of it, which the Prophets likewise confirmed, in their practical Sermons, by exhortation, reproof, promise, and threatening. Which then amounts plainly to our Conclusion, [That Christ in this place confirms the whole Decalogue, and every one of the Commandments of it, in the very words of it, as Moral and Perpetual.] CHAP. VI Solemn Worship is Moral Natural; both Solitary, and Conjoined, in Families, and Churches; and how fare. HAving in the former Chapters laid the foundation of our Dispute about the fourth Commandment; I. Connexion of the former discourses with the following. by Asserting generally the Perpetuity of sundry Laws of God in the Old Testament, even though but Positive: and particularly of such Laws as are Substantially profitable for all Men in all Ages to be bound unto: (unless it be found clearly that God hath repealed them.) As also by name, of the whole Decalogue. Before we proceed to apply all this to the fourth Commandment in hand, We esteem it Necessary to add further a 2d. General consideration, namely of the Nature of Time, as it relates to the Worship of God. Which if we can lay down clearly and strongly, (as by God's help we hope to do) we suppose we shall have made our groundwork so sure, as that no undermine or batteries of our adversaries will be able hurtfully to shake our building. But to this end, II. Necessity of discoursing about Solemn Worship. we must also first speak somewhat of the Worship of God itself, His immediate Worship. The rather, because, though our adversaries do not altogether deny any of that which we shall say about it: Yet we find not, that they express usually some things so fully, as we conceive it Necessary they should be expressed and understood; and withal, because they do in effect deny any other Solemn Worship then Public, which we take to be a great and dangerous error, and greatly prejuditiall also to the right understanding of the controversies in hand. We will therefore (to make the way plain before us) begin with a brief discourse concerning Solemn Worship: in the manner following. Though the Nature of man be much defaced by the Fall of Adam, III. Principles of Religion in all hearts. yet are there (as all men do acknowledge) some prime Principles of Religion found in every soul, (whether left, or reimprinted, we now dispute not) which can never be wholly blotted out. Among which, there are these two most legible upon the Tables of the Heart. 1. That there is a God. 1. [That there is a God.] Which even the most Barbarous and Savage people of the World in all Ages; and even the worst of Atheists, at some time or other, have been forced to acknowledge. The Frame of the Greater World, Yea the Frame of the Lesser World (Man,) do Preach to every one vocally, and as it were proclaim, a Deity, Rom. 1.20. iv 2 That he must have Worship. 2. [That this God must be Worshipped by all reasonable Creatures capable of the knowledge of him, and so of Worshipping him.] And this results from the former. For nature itself, cannot but conclude thus, If there be a God, it is but reason he should be honoured by all his Creatures that are capable of understanding, what it is to honour him. There is then a Natural Homage and Allegiance due to God from all mankind, by the very Law of their Creation, and particularly the Praising and Magnifying of Him, and so the performance of all other duties toward Him, that He prescribes men to Worship Him by, both with Soul and Body. V The Worship of God two fold. 1. Ejaculatory described. Now this Worship of God may be further distinguished into Ejaculatory, and Solemn; Ejaculatory, is [That which a man may tender to God, either with the Heart alone, or with the Tongue also in Prayer, Praises, Singing, etc. even in the midst of Worldly employments, sometimes.] Experience shows the possibility of this sometimes, and but sometimes. For some worldly employments, (as study, and divers others) do so wholly take a Man up both body and mind, as without sensible interruption, a Man cannot have leisure to tender so much as an Ejaculation to God for a while, and much less to speak of him. But other employments do admit (now and then, at least) much freedom both for the mind and tongue; So that even while the eyes and hands are busied in worldly work, as ploughing, or spinning, or weaving, and the like, one may, without any interruption of what they are about, lift up the soul to God, and the voice too for God, and so worship Him immediately, while withal they worship him mediately also in a worldly calling. VI Proved to be a duty for all men. Now unto this kind of Worship of God every one of mankind is undoubtedly bound, as much as it is possible for them to perform it. And namely by those general Precepts (which bind [Semper] as the schools speak, that is on all opportunities; though not [ad semper] at all moments, without intermission;) [Pray without ceasing. Rejoice evermore. In every thing give thanks. Trust in the Lord at all times. Meditate in the Law of God day and night. Speak of it, when thou sittest in the house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And by that universal of all others, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.] All this, we say, infallibly calls for such Ejaculatory worship, as much and as often, as a man can possibly have leisure; and at all seasons, when he shall not thereby be interrupted in his necessary attendance upon his body and bodily occasions. I say not that these commands require no more but Ejaculatory Worship: But so much infallibly they do require; and without this, they are not satisfied, how much or how often soever any one do tender Solemn Worship unto God. And so indeed it is both our misery and our sin, That though in the Solemn Worship of God, we are apt, (too apt, God knows) to fall upon thoughts of the world, of our worldly callings and businesses, at least, (besides worse matters:) Yet in our ordinary callings, we seldom remember God, as we might, and should. It being too true, of all in a degree, which is the common Character of the ungodly, [To forget God, and not to have him in our thoughts.] But however, VII. 2. Solemn described. be it at the best that can be imagined with us in this kind; this Ejaculatory Worship, is not all the homage we own to God; But we stand further bound (even every one of mankind) to tender also Solemn Worship unto him. And that is [The presenting the whole man soul and body both, together unto God; Taking one's self wholly off from all worldly things, and devoting themselves with all their strength, altogether, for a while, to the service, and Worship, and enjoyment of God: Setting aside all other businesses quite, to attend merely upon that, for so long.] And this to be a duty, as well as the former, VIII. Proof of it being a duty obliging all men by two Reasons. 1. God is Lord both of soul and body. not only the forementioned Precepts evince, special that of loving God with all thy heart, etc. besides manifold more in Scripture; But even the Law of Nature necessitates to it, whether we consider God, or ourselves, our souls, specially. 1. God, being our Creator, (not of our Souls only, but also of our bodies) and Lord of all that man hath, The glorifying of him both with the soul, and body too, is (and must needs be acknowledged) the Principal end of Man's Creation. For God made Man, as all things else, Principally for himself, for His own Glory. And so it cannot be enough, that man, should serve and Worship Him, by the by only, or by fits and snatches merely, in Ejaculatory Worship; while they are mainly busied and intent upon somewhat else: But his Sovereign Majesty and Dominion, requires also, sometimes, such a Solemn and serious attendance upon him, for the Illustration of His Glory: as that a man should mind nothing else that while; nor yet suffer any part or Member of His hand, or foot, or eye, or any, to be at all busy about any thing of the world: As hereby acknowledging kimself wholly and altogether to belong to God, and to hold all that he hath, even his whole being from Him. IX. 2. The good of man's souls repuires it. 2. Neither is it to be forgotten, that even the good of men's souls, (for which in the second place, Man was made and sent into the world) requires the same. For since the fall of man particularly (and even before) a full enjoying of God, which is the soul's happiness, cannot be had (no, not such as this life is capable of) in the midst of worldly employments, though a man do now and then, even as often as it is possible for him, by lifting up his soul to God in Holy Ejaculations, get a little comfort and sweetness. Therefore in this respect also, it is necessary for men sometimes to attend wholly upon God (specially we say since the fall, being now fettered with so much corruption, and filled with so much vexation) and to have no diversion, from any thing that his hands, or eyes, or any part of him are busied about: But that the whole soul do wait upon God, and the whole body also, in a due and serviceable proportion; that so he may by such Solemn Worship of God, have a full draught (as I may say) out of the Fountain of God's Goodness, and satisfy his soul with a more complete fruition of His Divine Grace. Or rather (to speak according to the unhappy condition, that all mankind are now naturally in, by reason of sin and corruption,) to seek to recover his lost happiness in God, by seeking Reconciliation with Him; and the regaining, and so retaining of his Favour in the use of such Holy means as himself hath appointed to this end, namely the Ordinances of His Worship. These things the Law of Nature teaches and commands to all men universally without exception, or exemption of any. And they must be Brutes, or Atheists (or both) that deny them. Moreover, X. Solemn Worship distinguished into Solitary, & Conjoined; and that into Domestical and Ecclesiastical. in as much as Worship may be presented to God either by any one single person alone, or by divers joining together in the tendering of it: which usually, though not so properly, is expressed by the terms of Private Worship, and Public, (we had rather say, Solitary, and Conjoined: and then divide the latter into Domestical or Family-Worship, and Ecclesiastical or congregational.) It is further considerable, what of any of these is to be acknowledged a necessary duty for all men, even according to the Law of Nature? And for this we say, 1. Generally and briefly, How far each of these is a Necessary Duty. That as far as any of them are possible to be performed, all mankind stand bound to tender them respectively, that is, so much, and so often as they have no just and necessary impediment. 2. Particularly for each of these severally. 1. Every one is bound to tender to God solemn worship by themselves alone. 2. Every one that lives in a family, where he may have others to join with him in solemn worshipping of God, is bound to that also, to join them to him, and himself to them, in presenting some solemn worship to God. 3. Every one also that lives in a convenient nearness with others, with whom he may join in an Ecclesiastical or congregational assembly, to worship God solemnly together; stands bound in like sort hereunto; and may not always absent himself from them, but some time or other it is his duty to join with them in such solemn Worship, even notwithstanding any danger of Persecution, and that the place of such Worship be but a private House or Chamber, or a Field, or a Wood, or a Cave, as it fared with the Primitive Christians. And of each of these we conceive proper Reasons to evince the necessity. 1. For the first of these, Solitary Worship, XI. Solitary Worship: which is not owned as Solemn, by our Adversaries. (ordinarily called Private Worship) A man would think, none should offer to deny it. But in our Disputers books, I am sure it is very ●●intly and seldom acknowledged, (and the second less, rather than more:) And by their language, neither Solitary, nor Family-Worship is owned, under the notion of Solemn Worship. For as much as it is usual with them, that when they any where name Solemn Worship, they add (Public) to it. As being afraid, left if they should grant any other Solemn Worship to be a Necessary Duty, besides Public (whereby they mean Ecclesiastical, as appears by their Discourses upon it) It would enforce (as indeed it will, as we shall see) a necessity of a solemn time for it, as well as for the solemn Public Worship: And then their general Morality of the fourth Commandment, which they have devised to be only for the Public Worship, will be found too scanty, and their whole Cause be endangered to fall to the ground, as we shall make it appear hereafter. Therefore we must needs take a little more pains to prove both Family-Worship, and even Solitary Worship to be necessary duties, and part of our homage to God, and even to be Morall-Naturall, and withal to deserve the name of Solemn Worship. And afterward we will say somewhat also of the necessity of Public Worship likewise: and so conclude the whole Chapter. XII. Solitary Worship proved a duty three ways. 1. Now for Solitary Worship, such as is performed with the whole man, setting himself altogether apart from all worldly businesses and distractions, to attend upon God immediately, and tender both Soul and Body to Him: That this is a necessary duty, appears from the grounds before laid, in a threefold respect. 1. That it is altogether unreasonable to imagine that God should lose any of his honour from any man single, because there is no other company to join with him in the solemnity of Worship. 2. It is also unreasonable to think, that a man is not bound to seek the recovery of his souls lost happiness, in his enjoying God, and conversing with Him in duties of Worship, to be performed both with Soul and Body, because he is alone, and hath none besides himself that will have any regard to further him and themselves together in conjoined Worship. 3. Otherwise it were not absolutely a Morall-Naturall duty to worship God solemnly (that is, with the whole man) at all. For every such duty, which we by the Law of our Creation own absolutely to God, cannot but be perpetually possible and universally to all, He being perpetually existent and present with us, and we with Him. But solemn Family-Worship (and much more solemn Public or Ecclesiastical Worship) is not universally and perpetually possible to all. And so no other solemn Worship is possible to them, but only Solitary. And if that be not to them a Morall-Naturall duty, than none is absolutely so, For it is clear, a Christian may be (and many are) forced to live many years in such a place, among Turks or Pagans, (as a Captive, or the like) where there is no possibility at all of having any other to join with him in the worship of God, no not secretly, much less publicly. So that though we deny not, but Public (that is, Ecclesiastical or congregational) solemn Worship is so far forth Morall-Naturall, as it is Possible. Yet we maintain, that Private (that is, Solitary) solemn Worship is more Moral and Necessary, yea firstly Moral, being not only Necessary, as the the other is, when it may be, but certainly Possible for every one of Mankind to perform; which the other is not, at all times, and in all places, when a man will. And now that such Solitary (or Private) Worship deserves to be called and counted Solemn Worship, XIII. Well called Solemn. appears from the description of Solemn Worship forementioned, against which no just exception can be taken. As also by the instance of daniel's prayers, which though performed by himself alone in his Chamber, yet cannot reasonably be denied to have been Solemn Worship, being three times a day constantly, and on his knees, and his windows open toward Jerusalem. Also his setting himself to seek the Lord by fasting, (though alone, c. 9) Can it be reckoned less than Solemn Worship? We add, if many Christians, all a Country or Kingdom over, should agree to fast and pray upon one particular day, every one in their Chamber apart & alone, this were without doubt a very Solemn service and worship, yet Solitary and private. We conclude then, that as there is such a Duty required of every one apart, at least sometimes, which we call Solemn Worship: so such a Duty being performed with the whole man, is worthy to be called and counted Solemn. And if Solitary Worship may deserve to be called Solemn, then surely Family-Worship also is justly to be counted Solemn. Such was the eating of the Passeover, which was ever in private houses: and esther's Fast with her maids, Est. 4. three days one after another: and the Humiliation mentioned Zach. 12. every family apart, and their wives apart; which seems to be a Solitary Worship, yet Solemn undoubtedly. So that all Solemn Worship is not Public. But if any one would yet list to wrangle about the word Solemn, let him but give us another fit word to describe such Solitary (or Private) Worship of the whole man tendered unto God so seriously: and it shall serve our turn sufficiently for the end we intent it for, as we shall see hereafter. Mean time we say, that conjoined Worship, XIV. Family Worship proved a duty. where it is possible to to be performed, is also a necessary duty, even so far forth Morall-Naturall, and that in both the kinds of it, Domestical and congregational. For in the second place, The Honour of GOD, and Good of Souls, do also require Family-worship from all such jointly, as live in Families, where they have any to join with. This appears, 1. Because it being God that hath placed men in a Community, (setting the solitary in families, as the Psalmists phrase is, Psal. 68) it cannot be justly conceived that He should do this merely for their worldly conveniencies; but rather chief that they should improve their society one with another to His Glory, who is the Lord of them all together, as well as of every one of them single; and so that they should worship Him jointly together, as well as each of them solitarily and apart. To which tends undeniably the forenoted charge given Deut. 6.6, 7. These words that I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart, and thou shalt teach them diligently to thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in the house, Deut. 11.18. and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. For though it comprehend plainly Ejaculatory Worship in part, as we have noted before, yet it reaches further; specially being added immediately unto the great Commandment, ver. 4. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And indeed, how can any man love God with all his heart and soul, and not be willing to join others to himself, and himself to others, as much as may be, in the worship of God? And how doth the Master of a Family love God with all his strength, that employs not his authority over all his Family to call them to worship God even in the Family, with himself, at least some times. (I say, at least some times; for we yet are but upon the Duty; the consideration of the Time is to come afterward.) Therefore also we find it a part of the unhappy character of Pagans, Jer. 10.25. Whereas some, to elude the strength of this Text for Family-Prayers, allege, that Psal. 79.6. the words are: the Kingdoms that call not upon thy name; and so by Family here, is meant no more than there by Kingdoms. I answer, The parallelling the two plates proves the thing more clearly: for as the Kingdom is not said to call upon God's name, unless the King command public meetings to that end, and that is counted a Heathenish and ungodly Kingdom: so is it with a Family, where by the authority of the Governor there are no joint meetings to pray to God. devoted to the wrath of God; The Heathen that know Thee not, and the Families that call not on Thy Name. And indeed, how hath the Family that knowledge of God, to be, 1. Their great Lord and Master; 2. The Author of their Peace among themselves, that the Governor is gentle to the inferiors, and the inferiors dutiful to the Governor and Superior 3. The Author of all Blessings to them all, Of health and strength to follow their business, of success and comfort in them: How I say have they the knowledge of God, if they agree not together to join in Worship of Him their Lord, and in tendering Prayers and Praises for such things as they expect and receive from Him. 2. The Good of souls calls for this also, Every one needing help from others, and all being helped by the Solemn services jointly presented to God in the Family. 1. In minding one another, by mutual testification, of the common Allegiance and Homage they all own to Him their great Sovereign, and so preventing the forgetting of Him. 2. Withal affecting one another by example of reverence and devotion. 3. They being also, infallibly taught, and minded of, and provoked to, some particulars of Duty, and furnished with some matter of comfort, by every such service performed jointly, (supposing that every one's heart joins faithfully in it) which before they were either ignorant, or forgetful of, or backward to, or should have miss, if they had been wholly and ever alone. As reason cannot but insinuate, and experience continually shows. It remains then, that Domestical and Family-Worship is a Necessary Duty, and as fare as it is Possible, even Morall-Naturall. XV. Public Worship proved a Duty. 3. So is also, Ecclesiastical or congregational Worship, which is usually called Public Worship, Even for the Reason's forenamed, God's Honour, and Souls Good. He is Lord of all societies (and the Author of them) as well as of Families. And so is to have a tribute of Worship and Glory from all jointly, The Lord having universal Dominion over all flesh, should publicly be worshipped, by societies of men. G. Irons. p. 261. as well as from any severally. And Love to God cannot but promote this as much as is possible. And the mutual blessings expected and received by greater Communities, (as well as Families,) do require the like, according to just conveniences. Which is so assuredly of the Law of Nature, that all Nations that have ever been heard of, have had their joint Public Solemn Worship, And have had Persons, set apart purposely for it, (Priests, or Ministers) for the more complete performance of it. Finally both Reason and Experience declare, that the good of Souls both calls for public (congregational) Worship: as also commends it as exceeding profitable and advantageous. Not only in that they are hereby yet more affected by a more General Example, recommending the Worship of God, but also, because by the Solemn Ordinances, of Prayer, the Word, and the Sacraments Administered and Dispensed, and used in Public, multitudes, are at once taught, and minded of, and provoked to the Duties they own to God and Man, better than their own solitary thoughts and endeavours, (or only their Families helping them) could ordinarily have attained unto. And this so much the rather, because of the gifts, which God to this purpose hath endued His Ministers with (who by His appointment are set apart, mainly for the Public Worship,) exceeding those which others have usually or ordinarily. Yet by the advantage of Public Worship, every particular Person present, both enjoys the benefit of the Ministers gifts, of Prayer, and specially of his knowledge and wisdom in interpreting the Scriptures and rightly dividing them, for the edification and consolation of every one; and so may reap in one hour the strength of that which hath been growing divers years; and feed upon that which hath been gathering divers days. More we shall not need to add concerning this, at this time: Because every conscience both feels the gain and increase of spiritual good and comfort, by the public Ordinances, as also by their earnest desire and seeking after them, proclaim it sufficiently to others. As also because to this (generally) our adversaries are frequent enough, in affording their Testimonies. And therefore also we will here spare the pains to quote any of them. Hereafter we shall have occasion to make use of some of them. Now we shut up this Chapter; with summing up for a conclusion, That both Solitary and Conjoined Worship, in Families and Churches are Solemn and Necessary Duties, required of all men, (so fare as hath been said) and so Morall-Naturall. And now what time is required for all this, we shall consider in the Chapters that follow. CHAP. VII. General Considerations about Time, and its profitableness, in Reference to Moral Actions of Importance. THe Necessity and Morality of Solemn Worship having been in the former Chapter discoursed of; I. Scope of the ensuing discourses about Time. We are now to take in hand the consideration of the Time, which may be, or is to be allotted to it, both generally, and for the performance of the several kinds of Worship Noted: Driving it to this scope, to show by the profitableness that may be in a wise determination of Time for Religion and Gods Solemn Worship. [That the determination of one day in seven for a Sabbath, (which we find in the fourth Commandment:) is a Law substantially profitable for all men in all ages to be bound unto.] Which then, (upon the grounds formerly laid, of the Morality of such a Law, though but Positive, unless God be found to have clearly repealed it) if we can vindicate from the supposed repeal, which some contend for, (as we believe we shall) we shall have demonstratively proved the perpetuity of that fourth Commandment in that Consideration; and gained the Principal Fort striven for in this Cause. And then the residue will be easy to be dispatched and made ours. To this end, we suppose it convenient to discourse first, II. Why we first handle it generally with respect to Civil Actions. concerning Time in general, as it may refer to humane Actions, even Civil; and that for two Causes. 1. That hereby, if it be possible, we may gain upon mens prejudices, and take them of, while we make it appear, that we wrist not things about Time to our purpose beyond the Nature of them; but that whether we ever meddled with Religion or not; Yet the considerations we shall note, are real and certain even in ordinary businesses and civil affairs. And so bringing our Cause before the bar of Reason and Nature (to which our adversaries have appealed, from the words of the Scripture,) we may take from them all evasions, and ways of shifting. 2. That hereby the whole matter may be more clear and distinct, for every one to conceive and bear away; when it is first set down generally with an Application to Civil Actions, and afterward particularly showed to agree to matters of Religion and Gods Solemn Worship. III. Why we use so many distinctions and divisions; And apply them a second Time. Melim est doctos onorare notis, quam rudes fraudare discendis. Leo Magnus. Phil. 3.1. To write the same things, to me indeed it is not grievous, But for you it is safe. And if in the former part we shall seem to some, somewhat too curious in spinning out distinctions and divisions, we crave a respite of such censure, until we have added our Application: wherein it will appear, that not one of all those divisions, how nice so ever it seems, but hath some Profitable (not to say Necessary) Use, toward the clearing, and giving light to, this most important controversy. On the contrary, if we be charged by others to tautologize in our Application of things to Religion in the following part; We wish such to consider, that many of the Notions being New, and not of ordinary observation; it may be more excusable to say some things a 2d. time over, which pregnant wits might have sufficiently understood and remembered by once mentioning them, then by a single mention of any thing of importance, to endanger the losing of any ordinary reader's apprehension or memory, in a discourse of such length and weight as this is. These things thus premised, we fall to our work, to scan the Nature of Time in reference to Humane and Moral Actions. iv Time an adjunct, yet may be substantially profitable. Time generally considered, is a natural adjunct, and circumstance accompanying Humane Actions of what kind soever. But yet such a circumstance, as hath, (according as it may be ordered) a real, as I may say, a substantial influence into the businesses, for which such Action is performed; and so may be substantially Profitable unto the main business; even according to natural reason, and in a constant course; supposing the business not to be effected by one single and momentaneous Action. V This consideration hath been hurtfully neglected. And Place unfitly paralleled with Time in Religion. Which reality of the effect of Time toward Moral Actions, being not observed, or not regarded by disputers in this Cause, hath bred much confusion, and occasioned manifold mistakes: as appears, even by that one most common Assertion of all the adversaries. [That Time and Place are equal circumstances in Religion,] Which how false it is, and how prejudicial, not to our Cause only, but to Religion itself; If we do not (anon) demonstrate beyond the possibility of any reasonable denial, we shall despair of ever prevailing in the Cause we have undertaken. But on the contrary, if we shall make manifest (as we are confident, by God help, we shall) That the one (namely Time) is of exceeding importance in Religion, even without respect to any particular institution or determination of it from God or man; and for that cause, calling necessarily for some determination, which, if wisely ordered, and strongly authorised, makes it undeniably and most singularly profitable to the soul and spirit, and so to Religion. And that the other, namely Place, to have nothing at all of importance in it toward the soul and spirit, beyond the Natural and Physical conveniencies of the body, (except 1. the Typical references of Places, expressly commanded by God himself, as the Tabernacle and Temple: And 2. the Memorial of any act of God's providence, or the like, at God's appointment, or from the institution of men, which are merely accidental things, and wherein also Time doth fully match Place, having been as well as it allotted to the same purposes, while withal, we say, it exceeds it, beyond all proportion in other respects) We hope we shall have gotten so main an advantage in our Cause, as that we shall very much prevent all possibility of future Reply. We say then, That Time being considerable in Philosophy, VI Three distinct respects of Time observable in actions. under a double Predicament: One is that of Quantity, or the Proportion of Time; which again hath a double respect, 1. Of Continuance so long together; 2. Of Revolution so often again. The other is that of Quando, or the season of Time: Hence ariseth a threefold common affection, or respect of Time, observable in every action or business: 1. Quamdiu? The extent of Time, 1. The length. How long together it is continued? 2. Quoties? The frequency of Revolution, 2. The number. How often it is reiterated and repeated? 3. Quando? The season or order of Time, When it is begun? 3. The order. All which are very much confounded and jumbled together in the Discourses of our Disputers, to the great disappointment of a right conceiving of the Truths in question. We say, the season when it is begun; for the season when it is ended, belongs properly to the Continuance, or Quamdiu. Now each of these respects of Time may be conceived, VII. All three considered as denominated by Nature, Art, Accident. either according to denomination of Divisions, taken either 1. from Nature; 2. Or from Art; 3. Or from Accident. 1. From Nature, as years, months, days, which are distinctions of Time observable in Nature. 2. From Art, as hours and minutes, into which, not Nature, but Art divides Time. (And to these, for the avoiding of an uncertain dispute, we are content to add Weeks. Though there be some great Scholars that have given more than an intimation, that the division of Time by Weeks (that is, by seven days) is a more exact Natural division according to Days, than either Months or Years. But this we leave for the present to those Authors to maintain.) 3. From Accident, as any remarkable thing passed, or which may occasionally happen, or continue; and the like. We may, and do often speak of the Respects of Time, according to such Accidents: As of the Continuance, while such a thing continued; and the Frequency, as oft as such a thing happened, (or the time came about, wherein it happened) and of the Beginning, when such a thing fell out, and the like. And whensoever we speak any thing distinctly of any respect of Time, we do and must needs speak of it in some or other of these phrases, denominating it so by Natural, or Artificial, or Accidental divisions. 3. Also one and the same denomination may sometime be applied to all the respects of Time in a distinct and several consideration: As to say, Such a man stays at home on Fridays, implies 1. the continuance, all day: 2. The frequency, every week: 3. the order, which day of the week. VIII. Time is indeterminate, or determinate: Each respect having a double limit. 4. Moreover, Time, in each of the forenoted respects, is further considerable two ways: 1. As indefinite and indeterminate: 2. As definite and determinate. And either way according to a double limit or term, in regard of which it may be determined or not, which we may call 1. Initial. 2. Conclusive. The Initial term or limit of the Quamdiu, or Continuance, is the least or shortest that is or may be for that action or business. Quoties, or Frequency, is the seldomest Revolution. Quando, or Season, is the latest Beginning. Contrarily, the Conclusive limit or term of the Quamdiu, is the longest Continuance. Quoties, or Frequency, is the oftenest Revolution. Quand●, or the Season, is the soon Beginning. Also between these Terms there is great latitude oftimes, and much variety of degrees in each of the respects of Time forementioned. Now by Time indeterminate, we understand, IX. Indeterminate Time described. that which is altogegether uncertain in any respect, before the action to which it belongs is performed: uncertain for the Continuance, until the action be finished: uncertain for the Frequency, (whether oftener than once) till a man actually go about the action or business a second time, and so forward: and uncertain for the Season, when it shall be begun or gone about, till the very instant of settling upon it. And such indeterminate Time is observable, in the several respects of Time, in many actions, and businesses of several kinds. By determinate Time (contrarily) we understand, That, X. Determinate Time, threefold. which before the action is performed, is appointed out in any respect for that action or business: which may be from a threefold Efficient: 1. The Nature of the Action. 2. The Command of a Superior. 3. A man's own peremptory Resolution. 1. Sometimes the nature of the action, XI. 1. By the nature of the action. or business to be performed, determines the Time beforehand, in one or more of the respects; when according to Nature it cannot be done, But 1. in such a continuance of time: as a man cannot read over a Chapter of such length, but in a proportionable continuance of Time spent in it. And so, 2. when the business in Nature is not dispatched by one action, how much Time soever a man allot to it: as some Land must be ploughed over more than once, or else it will bear no good Corn. And likewise, 3. when the business is lost, if not begun at such a season: as they say of the gathering of Saffron, if it be not taken in the just day, it is lost. All these are determinations by the Nature of the action or business in itself. 2. Sometimes Superiors, XII. 2. By a Superior. having sufficient authority to oblige to the observation of any respect of Time, do accordingly (at their pleasure) determine it, and command inferiors to apply it answerably to such action or business as they assign. 3. XIII. 3. By a manselfe. Somteimes a man's own peremptory resolution determines the respects of Time (for any action or business) to himself. And these two latter do specially make Time to be properly called determinate. And now although it be true, that, when an action is once done, or a business finished, it is all one, in Natural reason, whether the Time belonging to it were antecedently indeterminate, or determinate, as being then exactly equal one to another, and as exactly measurable or computable one to the other. Yet is there between them beforehand, even in Civil actions, a great and remarkable difference, (namely, as much as between may and must) for which they deserve to be carefully observed and distinguished into their natures and degrees. XIV. Indeterminate Time is attendant on business. To begin with indeterminate Time. The nature of this is, to be merely an attendant upon actions and business, and a mere circumstance. Necessary indeed, but not in any ethical or Moral consideration, but merely Physical and Natural (as a shadow is a necessary, that is, a natural attendant upon any body in the sunshine) in as much as it is simply impossible in Nature to perform any action, without the concomitance and attendance of Time. But on the other hand, the nature of determinate Time is, to be a commander of business, requiring the aitendance of such actions as are for the business. And it is as necessary Ethically to perform some such actions according to the determinations of Times, as it is Physically to have some Time to accompany actions. But withal it is to be observed, and the observation will prove of much weight (as we shall see) That even indeterminate Time, to some businesses, (and namely such as admit of variety of degrees) may prove a circumstance of much importance to the advancement, or disappointment of a man's end in his actions, even according to Reason and Nature, and in an ordinary and constant course. We will instance in the business of Learning, which to attain to, is a Students business, and his end, (though not ultimate) and unquestionably admits of great variety of degrees. And toward it divers actions are directed, as attendants on his Masters or Tutors teaching, and to give him account of his learning; and conversing with his Fellow-Scholars, or Fellow-Pupils, or Fellow-Students, in acts and exercises of Learning, Disputations, and Orations, and the like: As also studying, reading, and meditating by himself, XV. Yet profitable even voluntarily applied: Proved. for his further progress and increase in Learning. Now to all this we say, even Indeterminate Time may in some respects be of much importance towards the furtherance or hindrance of his business of Learning, according as any voluntarily (without any antecedent determination) applies himself, and employs his Time. Namely, this is true of the two first respects of Time, the Quamdiu, or Continuance, and the Quoties, or Frequency, (which are the two affections of the Quantity or Proportion of Time.) These are in themselves, though indeterminate, very material, and as we may say, substantial circumstances in the business of Learning. But it is not so with the Quando, or season of Beginning. For take that altogether indeterminately, and it is of no value or efficacy at all, to the speeding, or putting back of Learning, that is, not in itself, though, perhaps it may be somewhat by accident. A little further to explain these things, will be worth our pains: and so we will consider each of these respects severally, as also join the two first together, as far as they agree in this Observation in hand. Here then, 1. we affirm, that [the Quamdiu, or continuance of Time, XVI. 1. In the Continuance. even altogether Indeterminate and uncertain beforehand, and only prolonged by a man's own will, according to present affections and occasions, or shortened accordingly, doth answerably promote a man's Learning, or defeat it.] For infallibly, the longer (supposing his bodily spirits not tired) a Student continues attending his Tutor, and receiving directions and instructions from him, or exercising himself with others in matter of Learning, or hearing them, or studying by himself; and so in any of these (or all these) continues the pursuit of Learning, the more he prospers: and the less while he continues, the less he advances in such learning. So that a man may both foretell of two Students of equal capacity, (and opportunity of helps) that he who hath bestowed, even altogether voluntarily, and without any antecedent determination, a longer Time, such Day, upon Learning, hath gotten more that Day, than the other that bestowed less Time. As also by observing the progress of two such, any Day, he may, even without all examination which of them continued longest at his study, (or with his Tutor, and the like) conclude and pronounce demonstratively, That he who hath profited most, did continue longest; and he who hath profited less, did continue a shorter time. 2. We say the like of the Quoties, or reiteration of Time, XVII. 2. In the Frequency. even altogether uncertain and indeterminate, (till a man's own mind made him voluntarily return to his study) That the frequency of such return to study, and to his Tutor for help, and the like; or the seldomness of it, doth exceedingly set forward, or keep back a man's Learning. For infallibly, he that reiterates it every day, twice a day, (or so) prospers and goes on; and he that returns to it but once or twice a week, or month, or year, makes little or nothing of it in comparison: Other things being equal, as we touched before. So that here again a man may both foretell and judge infallibly between two, (otherwise equal) which is or will be the better Proficient, namely he that is more frequent in returning to his study, and he the worse that reiterates it (remarkably) seldomer. Also by discerning their different progress, he may without examination say demonstratively, Such an one studied more Days in a Week, or Month, or Year; and such an one fewer. XVIII. 3. In both. 3. Insomuch, as taking these two Considerations of Time together, they are the usual Periphrasis of a good Scholar or Student, [He is one that continues and keeps close to his study for a good while together, when he is at it; and is diligent in returning to it constantly day by day, Or in going often to his Tutor, or frequenting Acts and Exercises, and the like, whereby Learning is gotten.] XIX. 4. An evidence of Affection. 4. Withal, it is not to be forgotten, That even such [Voluntary applying of Time indeterminately, much, or little together, and often, or seldom] where there is no necessary or just impediment, is a most evident and undeniable demonstration, what special affection a man hath to Learning, much, or little. Neither is it almost possible for a man to express his own love (or another's) to Learning, or want of love to it but by employing at least somewhat about the Proportion of Time; the Continuance, long, or short; and the Reiteration, often, or seldom, for such employment. XX. 5. And Wisdom. 5. Finally, This application of the continuance and frequency of Time to any thing, hath so great an influence into all business of importance, that we usually count a man wise, or unwise, according to the spending of his Time, (even voluntary) Reckoning him vain and lightheaded, that settles not for any remarkable continuance, to some one business or other; or that pursues one thing to day, and another thing to morrow, and a third thing the third day, and so returns not in any frequency to the same employment, particular or general. And esteeming him wise, that doth the contrary. But now, none of all this will be found concerning the Quando, XXI. But not in the Quando, unless by accident. or season of beginning, any Time, to set to study, or the like, voluntarily and indeterminately, It is not at all of any importance, that is, not in itself, though by accident perhaps it may be somewhat, as was touched before. By accident, we say, it may be of some importance, and that in three cases specially. 1. When his body, and bodily spirit may be more fit, or unfit, by beginning sooner, or later, at this hour, or that. 2. When at such or such a season, a man may have more or less help, from his Tutor, or others, then at another time. 3. When the delay, or hastening the beginning to study, falls in with, or crosses the other respects of Time forespoken of, (which are in themselves of importance) as when a man thereby shall have liberty and opportunity, or not, to continue longer, or reiterate oftener his study, and the advantages of getting Learning. But all these are accidental things, and not constant to such seasons of Time; wherein indeterminately and voluntarily study may be begun, or a Student may repair to his Tutor, or the like. And so setting aside such Accidental Considerations, It will, we say, appear, that in the Quando, or beginning of Time, (according to any denomination of Nature, as this or that Day; or of Art, this or that Hour, as we spoke before) there is no materiality at all toward the advantage, or disadvantage of Learning. One part of Time (according to which, every moment, a new Quando gins, wherein a man, if he please, may begin to study) is as behooveful as another, one Minute as another, one Hour as another, one Day as another, and none more than another. So that here a man can neither rationally foretell, nor conclude any thing, (as he might in the former respects) what Progress, much or little, a man hath made: Nor 2. whether more or less, compared with another, who begun at another season, sooner or later: Not yet 3. what Affection he hath to Learning; For a man may sometimes begin to study in the Morning early, merely by having nothing else to busy himself in at that season; and he may forbear to begin, not for want of affection, but through interruptions of other business: Nor 4. by seeing any one's progress in Learning, can it be judged (unless from some accidental thing withal) what Day or Hour he began to study; or which Hour or Day he took for study, out of any number, if he intermitted any. And so 5. in conclusion, it appears, that the Quando, or Season of beginning (at this or that particular Time) indeterminately, and voluntarily (without respect to some accident that may fall in with it) is a thing merely indifferent, and no matter of wisdom, or importance at all toward Learning, or any other like business. Which difference, between the Quando or beginning of Time even indeterminate, and the other two respects, of the quantity or proportion of Time, the Continuance and the Frequency, must be remembered against hereafter. For it will be of special use, to more purposes than one. XXII. Time determinate distinguished. And so we proceed to the consideration of Time determinate, and specially as it is determinate by the command of another; or by a man's own peremptory resolution. And so the determination of the Affections or Respects of Time admits of a double difference, namely in regard 1. Of the Respects themselves. 2. Of the manner of determination. 1. In regard of the respcts themselves. In regard of the respects themselves, Time may be determined. 1. In any one of these respects, single. 2. In any two of them jointly. 3. In all three of them together. 1. There may be a determination of any one of these affections of Time single, the other being left undetermined, as— 1. Any one alone. 1. Of the Quamdiu, or Continuance, alone, saying, [Let an hour together be bestowed on study] not determining whether more than once, or when for the season. 2. Of the Quoties, or Reiteration alone, saying, [Every day bestow Time on study] not determining how long at once, or what hour. 3. Of the Quando, or Season of beginning alone, saying, [At seven in the morning begin to study] not determining how long to continue, or whether oftener than that one day. 2. Any two jointly. 2. There may be a determination of any two of these respects of Time jointly, and the third left undetermined, as— 1. Of the Continuance and Frequency jointly [Let an hour● together each day bestowed on study,] not determining at what hour to begin. 2. Of the Continuance and Beginning jointly [Let an ho●●● together beginning at seven in the morning be bestowed study.] not determinating whether oftener than that one 3. Of the Frequency and Beginning jointly [Every day begin at seven in the morning to set about study,] not determining how long to continue. 3. Likewise there may be a determination, 3. All three together. of all the three Respects of Time together, saying [Let an hour together each day, beginning at seven in the morning be bestowed on study.] Again, XXIII. 2. The manner of determination. in regard of the manner of determination of these Affections or Respects of Time, (any of them or all of them) there are considerable differences, for it maybe 1. Remiss and at large. 2. Strict and exact. A remiss determination, 1. Remiss. is when Time (in any of the respects) is so determined in some General expression, as that both the terms or limits are left undetermined, as to appoint— 1. For the Continuance [Let a good while, or a little while together be bestowed on study] not determining how long, or how little while, clearly. 2. For the Frequency [Often, or seldom, bestow Time upon study,] not determining how often, or how seldom, particularly. 3. For the Season [Begin betimes, or late to set about study,] not determining, how early or how late, distinctly. A Strict and Exact determination, contrarily is, 2. Exact or strict ●hree-fold. when both the limits are (or at least one of them is) so particularly and punctually expressed as no doubt can be made, how long or short, often or seldom, early or late, is required for study by the determination, as namely, in all those mentioned, of one respect single, or two, or all three. Yet again, this strict and punctual determination, admits of some variety, for it may be three fold; 1. Initial. 2. Conclusive. 3. Exclusive. We call that an Initial determination, 1. Initial. when the Initial term of the Respects of Time, is expressly mentioned and determined, that it must be so long, so often, and so soon, and no less while, nor no seldomer, no not later; But yet with an intimation, that somewhat more is (and will be) required, in each respect, or in any, by some other determination, though not by this. 2. Conclusive: This adds strictly the conclusive term to the Initial. On the other side, we call that a Conclusive determination, which though it forbids not, more than the determination Names for Continuance, Frequency, or soon beginning. Yet strictly commands no longer, nor no oftener, nor no sooner, only commands so long without fail, and so often, and so soon, and forbids a shorter Continuance, a seldomer revolution, and a later beginning. 3. Exclusive. Also we call that an Exclusive determination, which both affirmatively and negatively, by way both of command and prohibition, prescribes so peremptorily the limits on all sides, as that nothing is allowed on any respect otherwise then is expressed. As that the Continuance must be so long infallibly, and no longer, as well as no loss while; and the Frequency so often, and no oftener, as well as no seldomer; and the Beginning, on that season, or point of Time, and no sooner, as well as no later, according to the direct words of the Determination, as to say [Bestow six hours upon study] every month, the first of the month, from six in the morning, till noon, without variation, augmentation or diminution. XXIV. Yet admitting a reservation. After all, it is to be observed, concerning all these determinations of Time in any respect. That every one of them may upon the pleasure of the determiner, (if it be a Superior) either declared concurrently with the determination, or any Time after, admit of a Reservation, or dispensation, for some particular thing or occasion, which may interrupt somewhat the determination, in any respect, according to the manifestation of such pleasure or allowance of his: And for the residue, the determination may remain firm and obligatory to all purposes. As a Master may determine his scholar to study a whole week together every day, from six in the morning, to six at night, and yet admit the interruption of meal Times, and such like occasions of necessity. XXV. The profitableness of this determination, by the 5. Causes of it. And now, having thus laid down the main distinctions that belong to Time generally considered; We come to make further way, toward our scope, by considering the special profitableness of determinate Time in one or two, or all the three Respects; and that in a threefold Gradation, suitable to the steps we have already trodden. 1. The profitableness (or even necessity) of having any determination of Time at all, for any humane business, and namely for Learning, to keep still to that instance. 2. What kind of determination of any one of the respects of Time, single, or of any two of them jointly, or of all three of them together, is profitable (or necessary) for it? 3. What manner of determination, Remiss, or Exact, Initial, Conclusive or Exclusive, is specially profitable (or necessary) towards it, according to the rules of Natural Reason and experience. The first of these is discernible by the Causes, that show generally a profitableness, (and even a necessity for some persons at least) of having some determination of Time for Learning, or any such like business. Which Causes may be reduced to 5. Heads. And one or other of them is perpetually to befound in all wise determinations of Time for any business whatsoever; and commonly divers of them concur to the profitableness, and specially to the necessity of such determination. 1. The importance (and specially the necessity) of the business; XXVI. 1. The importance of the business. learning to be attained by a professed Scholar or student, is the fundamental ground of a wise and profitable determination of any respect of time for it. This makes it worthy to have time set apart for it, which else were vain and foolish. 2. The impossibility of attending that business, XXVII. 2. The impossibility to attend it and other business. the pursuit of Learning, Sufficiently, together with other businesses, (also important and necessary in their nature and degree,) at the same instance of Time: Each of them taking up the whole Man for the while: This is a further Recommendation of the convenience and profitableness, of some Determination of Time, at least for one of those businesses, and namely for that which is most important, (as we suppose Learning to be a professed Student) that that may be so fare secured thereby, and then in the residue of Time the other business (or businesses) may also be conveniently attended. 3. The unwillingness of mind in such, XXVIII. 3. The unwillingness to it. whom that most important business concerns, to be at all (or sufficiently) conversant in it; (which unwillingness is found often enough in sundry professed Scholars and Students) Recommends not only as profitable, but as Necessary (equally with the necessity of that business of learning, to such spirits,) that there be some determination of time allotted to it: and namely such, as may conveniently Secure and Promote the attainment of necessary learning for them. XXIX. 4. The danger o● interruptions. 4. The danger of interruptions, preventing the setting about such business (of learning) or calling of from it, when one is about it: (Even such interruptions, as are unworthy to hinder or divert, & yet are apt to be allowed by minds not over desirous of pursuing learning;) adds to the profitableness (and necessity) of some determination of Time for it; which may forbid, and so disappoint, the admitting of any such unnecessary preventions and interruptions of learning, and study. XXX. 5. Want of Wisdom. 5. The want of Wisdom, to resolve steadily upon the sudden, and judge constantly at the instant, what Time or Times are necessary or sufficient to be employed for the Attainment of Learning, and to leave sufficient for other businesses; Makes up not the profit only, but also the necessity of having a convenient determination of Time for Learning. Whereby both the Unwilling may be put from his frivolous excuses, and vain pretences, whereby he would cover his unwillingness: As also a Man willing to share his Time prudently between his variety of Businesses, may not be disquieted (as otherwise he would often be, whether he studied or studied not) but his mind may now rest satisfied, that there is a fair allotment of Time for his chiefest business of Learning; as also conveinent room left for other businesses of importance, which may be shared among them either determinately again, or otherwise, as occasions are. These are the causes that recommend as Profitable, or even call for as Necessary, some determination to be made for some persons, in matter of learning, either by themselves, or by some Superior over them. XXXI. For the kinds of determinations. The determination of the continuance and frequency is very profitable. In the next place to speak of the kinds of determination in regard of the respects of times themselves. It is to be considered, 1. That those respects of Time, which have in them a Materiality, and Substantiality, toward the business of Learning; when they are but Voluntarily, and Indeterminately Applied to it (as hath been showed of the Quamdiu or Continuance, and the Quoties or Frequency) as they cannot lose of their Validity, by being determined (if it be wisely done in regard of degrees) so may they undoubtedly be Profitably determined: and upon the former suppositions must be Necessarily (and that whether we take them singly, or jointly, as we shall see by and by) For such a Determination, wisely ordered, makes the Profit that may arise from the observation of such proportions of Time, Certain, which was before (in the most willing) Contingent, because of the hazard of interruptions, or want of wisdom: and in the Unwilling, was not to be hoped, would be had at all, because it is certain without some determination, they would not observe any such Times at all. 2. But now for the Quando, the Season (or Order) of beginning: XXXII. Not of the Quando, but by accident. As we have showed that there is no Validity or Efficacy in it (except by Accident) towards a man's benefiting himself in learning, (or any like business) so it is observable, that a determination of it, is no further Profitable (or much less Necessary) or capable of any exercise of Wisdom about the degrees of it, than so far as it may appear that any Accidental respect, doth or will make it serviceable, and beneficial: As having (or being likely to have) 1. More freedom and better temper of Spirits at that season then at another: Or 2. Better help and less interruption: Or 3. Better security of observing the other respects of continuance and frequency, being before Profitably determined. Unto which last purpose, although it seem necessary, that there be some determination of the Quando or Season, as to the observing of an hour certainly every morning for study, it seems in a sort necessary to determine the particular hour, lest it else be slipped: Yet in exact consideration, this needs not absolutely be done beforehand, by another, or one's self: For even the nature of the former determination doth it thus far sufficiently, that even it determines the last hour, if a former were not observed. And so still the determination of this or that particular Quando, or season (or order) of beginning is of itself of no substantial profit toward Learning, or any such like business. 3. Whence it follows clearly, XXXIII. Therefore an alteration of it, is not hurtful. That whereas a determination of the Continuance and Frequency of Time for Learning, cannot be altered in any remarkable degree, without an answerable alteration in the profit of it, (whether more or less according as the determination now is;) and so being once wisely made, remains constantly so fare forth profitable for Learning: It is quite otherwise with the season or order of Time. For of the determination of that, there may be a remarkable alteration, (as from the last hour to the first, or from the second day to the sixth, or the like;) and yet no alteration at all in the profit of it: There being still as much advantage, (substantially in the Continuance and Frequency unaltered, and accidentally in the new season determined) for the getting of Learning as there was before. And so, if any new accident recommend a new season, in the least degree, it may without any prejudice at all to the main business be removed to that; while yet the determination of the Continuance and Frequency is suffered to remain, because of the constant profitableness of it. XXXIV. The profitableness of the determination of the Continuance as largely as may be. 4. In a business, which requires intention of mind in the pursuit of it (as it is most unquestionably in matter of Learning) a determination of the Continuance in some sort largely, is certainly profitable; and moreover it is even necessary, that it be determined in so large a proportion as may conveniently satisfy the intendment of the occasion: (if it were but even once, and so one single Continuance determined without any joint Frequency or revolution) even as much as any one single Continuance can. Neither can any such Continuance be too largely determined, unless a man's natural Spirits will not hold out to the whole length of the Continuance, or that some other business of present necessity should call for a share, during that Continuance: (Both which cases may yet perhaps be satisfied by a Reservation made for them, and so the determination of the Continuance may hold on notwithstanding.) But except those cases, we say again, that the determination of a large Continuance is most mainly profitable (and necessary) even the largest that can be; by reason. 1. That the mind is not always in temper readily to apprehend the Notions of Learning, even when a man sets himself to it; coming newly from other business which hath filled his head and heart with conceptions different enough from that which he now settles to: And so if he have not a convenient. Continuance determined, he may get little or nothing at all at that Time, being taken off again before his mind fixes strongly and throughly upon the matter. 2. For that also divers pieces of the business of Learning are difficult enough: So as if a man have not a conveniently large Continuance, to digest the Notions throughly, he may soon lose and forget, even those which he seemed to have gotten; and even though his returns to his study should be very frequent. Short snatches and sudden fits, how often soever reiterated do (in experience) make a student but a slow proficient. Neither indeed do we usually count a man a good student, that doth not allot, (or at least voluntarily employ,) a considerable Continuance of Time to it, how often soever he takes up a book in his hand to study, or makes frequent returns to it, as well as frequent interruptions from it. The same profitableness (and even necessity) of a very large Continuance determined is evident, where a business calls for variety of actions toward the advancement of it: As for a student's progress in Learning to attend upon another to read to him and instruct him, Also 2. to attend, and bear part in disputes and conferences, and other exercises of Learning, private and public (according to opportunities,) And 3. specially to study alone, read and meditate and write by himself: All these require the largest Continuance that may be, to secure and promote the general business of Learning, by affording a convenient space, not only for the prosecuting of each of these, but also for the drawing out of every one of them so competently as to make the mind a gainer in Learning by them all, severally and jointly. 5. Furthermore, as where the business is permanently of importance, XXXV. The profitableness of the determination of the Frequency as largely as may be. & not wholly dispatched by one attendance upon it, how long so ever the Continuance be extended; (As it is with the business of Learning to the professed Scholar, which is still of as much importance and necessity as ever;) There it is profitable (and even necessary) that there be some determination of the Frequency of Revolution, such namely as may conveniently secure and promote the business of Learning; as was in part touched before: So we are to observe more particularly; That, where the business is also liable to decay, and to be put backward (as well as capable of advancement) Which cannot be denied in matter of Learning, a man may lose as well as gain, decrease as increase in it: There it is profitable (and necessary) to have a determination of very great Frequency of returns to it, even as Frequent as can be imagined compatible with other necessary businesses; [As to say with the Painter nulla dies sine linea,] a Frequency of every day, or twice every day: Even though it be but a single determination of it alone. even although by reason of other necessary businesses, which must also have their Times and Turns as often, it be convenient not to make any determination of the Continuance at all, (or at least only Remiss) with these so frequent returns, but leave that to occasions, which even so will sometimes serve to afford a man that is any thing willing to follow Learning, fair Continuance to attend it, when he is once at it, and so make by fits a very remarkable gain, when interruptions call him not off, for a good while together, as now and then it will happen. However, the very Frequency of Returns will greatly help to prevent much decay in Learning, and keep him in breath toward it, and in it. Specially if there be (besides this single determination of so great Frequency) added a joint determination of a convenient large Continuance, with a convenient frequent Return: Of which our next Consideration is to speak. XXXVI. The profitableness of a joint determination of the Continuance and Frequency both, with convenient largensse. 6. And upon the former suppositions of the importance of the business of Learning permanently, and its requiring intention of mind to get and retain the notions of it, when one is about it, and prevent decays afterward, it cannot be denied, but such a joint determination of a large Continuance frequently, is profitable and necessary for it, besides the single determination of the great Frequency forementioned: Or else, considering the Unwillingness, and danger of Interruptions, and want of Wisdom forenoted; There will be not only no considerable advancement in the business of Learning, but infallible decays also, though perhaps not greatly sensible soon, yet after a while discernible to every eye that looks after it. Withal it is to be noted, that such a joint determination of a large Continuance, with frequency of Return, cannot but be [The chief determination of Time] for the prosecution of that business of Learning, XXXVII. Such a determination is the chief and most substantially profitable of all other. that is, the most substantially-profitable determination of all other, supposing the degrees of both be rightly ordered, in reference to men's natural abilities to hold out so long at once, and other necessary businesses to admit of so frequent a continuance to be determined for that. We say, such a determination is the most substantially-profitable of all other, as having in a just and convenient proportion the strength of both the profitable respects of Time, the Continuance and Frequency joined. And so the Time accordingly determined by it, may fitly be termed, [The necessary and ordinarily sufficient chief Time determinate for Learning.] As without which no other Time is sufficient, nor any other extraordinary Time, so necessary for the general business of Learning; and the necessary ordinary Time every day, being not so chief a Time for gain in Learning, as wanting a determination of the Continuance with all. This then, being wisely determined, must needs be the chief Time, and is both necessary, and for the chief Time, ordinarily sufficient. Therefore it is very considerable, by what Rules of Wisdom it may be made. Of which, besides what we have implied already, of the holding out of natural abilities so long, and other businesses not refusing so frequent a Continuance, to be determined for this one business of Learning; We have a particular Consideration to add, On which side the weight should be put in this joint determination, whether on the side of the Continuance to determine the largest Continuance that may be, with a convenient Frequency, or a very great Frequency with a less or shorter Continuance? Of which we thus propound our apprehensions. 7. Where the business requires various actions towards the advancement of it, XXXVIII. In the joint determination of the Continuance, and Frequency. The largest Continuance, with a conveniency, is more profitable than the greatest Frequency, with a less Continuance supposing the proportion in general to be equal in both. and each of them requires intention of mind to a right performance of it, as it is evidently with the business of Learning, as hath been noted; And that withal there are divers other businesses of importance, which must have also frequently their just spaces allotted to them: There, of the two, it is more profitable in both considerations, (of promoting Learning, and serving others occasions and businesses) to have the determination weigh most upon the side of the Continuance, and make that as large as may be, with some competent Frequency, rather than to make the Return more frequent, with a remarkably shorter Continuance. This, we conceive, may easily be made good, if we suppose any proportion of Time, in the whole equal, to be divided first between a large Continuance, and less Frequency; 2 between a shorter Continuance, and greater Frequency. As for instance: A whole Day, of ten or twelve hours, or more, as a man's natural spirits are able to hold, (even with the reservation of a dining time, if he will) will be more profitable for the advancement of Learning, though but with a determination of a scanty Revolution, once in a Week, (remembering withal the former supposition of a single determination of some Time every Day, or even twice a Day) then to share those ten or twelve hours between five, or six, or seven Days in a Week, and so make each Day to have but between an hour and two hours' continuance at the most: For the former shall have full scope for all variety of actions forenamed toward Learning, and for his mind to settle itself fully to improve each of them: The other can only meddle with one or two at the most, to do any good of it, and oftentimes shall find the greatest part of his Continuance spent, before he can throughly bring his mind to fix upon it to any purpose. And if we suppose a less Continuance, still the thing will be more clear. Also on the other hand, considering other businesses, it will be far the more profitable determination, to take the chief Time for Study and Learning, at one large Continuance less frequent, then with more frequent revolutions and returns of less Continuance: For the frequent returns, though with the continuance of no more than an hour at once, (or even less) would prove very often greatly prejudicial to those other important businesses; and so hazard either the disappointing of them, or the trenching upon the determined hours for Learning: whereas the larger Continuance, and less frequent returns, would have been more out of danger both ways, and prevented the inconvenience of either encroaching upon the other. XXXIX. The same Quando profitably determined to many. 8. Where the business equally concerns divers, who live in a nearness one to another, and so may, (and accordingly should) help one another; and contrariwise may possibly interrupt and hinder one another: As it is with Scholars in a School, or Students in an University: There, as the common concernment of the business equally recommends as profitable (and necessary) the same joint determination (upon the former suppositions of consistency with Natural spirits, and other necessary occasions) from that known Axiom, [A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia:] And the cause being the same to all, brings forth the same effect for all. So is it Profitable and even Necessary (from those accidental occasions) to have not only some Quando, Season (or Order) of Beginning, determined with the Continuance and Frequency, and so make a complete determination of all the three Respects of Time together: But also to have the self same; as the same Day in a Week or Month, the same Hour of the Day, and the like, for Beginning, and so to run along together till the end of the Continuance; at least so far forth as may secure the possibility of helping one another in Learning, and prevent the hindering one of another; In that all, from the first to the last, are to be so busied about Learning, as none is allowed to interrupt another, or admit of an interruption from another wholly out of the way of Learning. Thus far, we say, a determination of the Quando, the Season, or Order of Beginning, may also be profitably determined, with the other respects of Continuance and Frequency: and when it is so, then is it a most complete determination, which is so made of all three, for the kind of it: Though still for the degree (or particularity) of the Quando, Season, or Order, there is no special profitableness in this, or that; but another might, and would have done as well. XL. For the manner, 1. An exclusive determination is not profitable. In the third and last place, we must also say somewhat, what manner of determination may be conceived profitable, of any of the forementioned kinds. We say then, 1. Where the business is of so chief importance, all a man's life time, as that the more it prospers, the better it is with a man, (as it is in point of Learning, with a professed Scholar) There, an exclusive determination cannot be profitable, (much less necessary) relating to the generality, or whole, of the business of Learning, (how large soever the proportions be made either for Continuance or Frequency) as that a man may never look after Learning, longer at once, nor oftener, nor sooner, than the determinations express. Though for some particular cases, by accident, (as to a sickly man, or in the foresight of some other business of special weight) it may possible be fit, and even necessary. XLI. 2. An Initial is, 2. Where there is wisdom to make a determination, and not to trench upon other necessary business; There it is (so far) very profitable to make at least an initial determination, clearly of so much Continuance, and no less while together; and so often Returns, and no seldomer, (and even of so soon, and no later Beginning.) And upon the former suppositions of Unwillingness, and danger of Interruptions, and want of present Wisdom at all instants, it is even necessary to make at least such an initial determination. For so (and so only) shall the unwilling be necessitated, and certain, to afford to the pursuit of Learning such a proportion of Time; and the willing shall be at liberty for it, and secured from others offering, or at least from their own admitting any unnecessary interruptions. 3. Where there wants either 1. Wisdom, XLII. 3. Not a Conclusive to some. to discern certainly how much Time is ordinarily necessary and sufficient to be employed in pursuing the business of Learning; Or 2. Willingness to employ. Time in it; Or 3. Sufficient Authority, to awe unwilling Inferiors, whom the determination must concern: There a conclusive determination of the chief time for Learning, in all probability cannot be profitably made by such persons. For either through want of Wisdom, they will miss the just degrees and proportions for Continuance, or Frequency, or both, and they may err on either hand: Or through Unwillingness, they will be sure to determine the proportions too scantly, too short, or too seldom, or both: Or lastly, their determination, how wisely soever made, will be to little or no purpose; For the want of Authority will make it be despised infallibly, by the unwilling; And a determination not observed, (specially not likely to be observed, beforehand) is all one in effect with no determination at all. As appears often in Scholars, when their Masters or Tutors are absent, and leave them to such as they stand not in awe of. XLIII. 4. Though to others. 4. Contrariwise therefore, a conclusive determination of the chief Time for Learning, made by such as have sufficiency of Wisdom, and 2. Affection to have it promoted, and 3. Authority to awe inferiors to observe it, is certainly a profitable, even a most singularly profitable determination. In that hereby all, of all sorts and dispositions, whom such a determination concerns, shall have their own want of Wisdom supplied, and a necessary and sufficient tye laid upon the unwilling; and affording the willing a welcome and pleasing liberty and security to the utmost of ordinary convenience. XLIV. 5. A remiss determination is profitable to try affections. 5. Where one is willing to try others affections, to the business of Learning, (specially Inferiors) There a remiss determination may be so far profitable to be made, in any of the respects of Time, or in all, (As, Continue a good while at your study, when you are at it; Or, Study often; Or, begin betimes in a morning, for fear of wanting Time, or being interrupted) yet particularising nothing in any respect. Thus much (generally recommending the business) may be a pregnant trial of their willingness or unwillingness: For the willing will readily improve this, to a remarkable advantage: And the unwilling will shift and make excuses, as if still uncertain what they were determined unto: and so discover their want of affection, as the other their good affection to it. But otherwise, this manner of determination is in no wise sufficient, for the whole, or even for the chief Time for Learning, toward either 1. the unwilling, or 2. those that are in danger of Interruptions, or 3. those that want Wisdom, (as was forenoted) to share that Time equally between the varieties of business, and so to secure sufficiently their main business of Learning. 6. XLV. A particular determination may be taken away. A determination for a particular action within the compass of the bussnesse of Learning, I may possibly for a while be profitable for that; and afterward be so no more: and so though it might have been of some use still in some respect, yet withal it may now become a burden convenient to be taken away. Notwithstanding which, a conclusive determination for the chief Time for Learning, may (upon the grounds forenoted) remain perpetually and undeniably, a substantially-profitable determination: and for this cause may be perpetuated, when others are discharged of lesser consequence, and whose primary immediate end now no longer recommends them so profitable as they were before. 7. Finally, XLVI. A reservation is profitable when interruptions are foreseen. (to end these Considerations about the manner of Determinations, and withal the whole about Time generally:) Where there is evidently to be foreseen some necessary Interruptions, that will certainly, (or may in likelihood) call off from the strict observation of the Time determined in any respect: There it is profitable, (and even necessary) to make it with sufficient reservations, general or particular, for all such necessary Interruptions, (as refreshing the natural spirits by eating or drinking, or the like; or dispatching any pressing sudden business) and after those occasions satisfied, that the strength of the Determination shall return, and stand in its proper force and validity, for the residue of the Time determined. Which will prevent its being really burdensome, and all pretences that it is so, when there is no cause to complain. And now how far all these Considerations of Time in Nature are appliable to Religion, and the solemn Worship of God, XLVII. The conclusion. though we cannot doubt but judicious eyes do much discern already; Yet for the satisfaction of all Readers, we must distinctly and particularly set down in the ensuing Chapters; And hope to do it so clearly, as to give satisfaction to the most, if not to all; which in matters of Controversy, indeed, seldom happens to the most rational Discourse. CHAP. VIII. Considerations of Time in Relation to Religion, and the Worship of God: how fare it may be Profitable thereunto. We come now to apply particularly unto the Worship of God, what we have before laid down in General, concerning Time, in relation to Moral Actions. And this we do by these steps following. I. Time employed in Religion, is either Common or solemn. 1. Time in reference to Religion and the Worship of God, is considerable two ways. 1. As an attendant upon Duties of Worship, which some call Common Time. 2. As requiring Duties of Worship to attend it, which is called Solemn Time. Common Time is that which attends actions. This distinction, is in part the same with that formerly laid down of indeterminate, and determinate Time. For all indeterminate Time is Common Time, and merely an attendant upon Duties of Worship. And all Solewne Time, which requires Duties of Worship to attend it, is determinate Time, namely antecedently determined by God, (in Nature, or in His Word) or by some Superior among men, or by a man's own resolution or vow. But now in Religion, some kind of determinate Time, comes more properly under the notion of Common Time, then of Solemn Time. And so neither are indeterminate and common Time, terms altogether reciprocal, and convertible; Nor yet determinate and solemn Time. For some determinate Time, such namely as is in any respect determined by the nature of any Duty of Religion, viz. of the Worship of God, is as merely an attendant upon the Duty, as any indeterminate Time, being according to the description of indeterminate Time, a mere circumstance; and necessary to the Duty, not in any Theological Consideration, but merely Physical and Natural, it being simply impossible in nature to perform those Duties without such concomitance & attendance of Time. As the Continuance of Time for the reading of a Chapter, or of such a Liturgy, or the like, is plainly determined by the Nature of the Action, and Physically necessary to the Action, and so no more but common Time. So that by common Time, we understand both all indeterminate Time, voluntarily and uncertainly applied to Duties of Religion, as also whatsoever Time the nature of any Duty of Religion doth of itself determine in any respect. And by solemn Time, we understand, only such determinate Time, as is either by God, or Man, (a Superior, or one's self) Antecedently determined, either for any one Duty of Religion or Worship in special, or generally for any Duties of Religion whatsoever. 2. This being thus laid down, it follows; II. This falls not properly under a Law. That Time in the first Consideration, of indeterminate and common Time, cannot properly be said to fall under the Law of God, or that any Commandment of His should at all meddle with it. As well because, 1. It is no less than ridiculous to make a Law, or even give a single command about that which whether we will or no, will be sure to accompany our actions. The Law in this, taketh order only for the action, this or that Duty to be performed; and that carries Time (such indeterminate and common Time,) along with it, infallibly and unavoidably. As also. 2. for that the Command of God (or even of Man) being the efficient cause of the determination of solemn Time, it is a formal contradiction to say, [That any Precept or Law Commands any Time, altogether indeterminate.] For as soon as it medles with it, it makes it determinate, (and solemn) it determines it, in one respect or other, at least remissely and within a latitude: As when we bid a man, take Time to Pray, or read in the Scriptures, or meditate of the Sermon he hath heard, or learn a Catechism; or any such like thing, though without any seeming determination of the Time in any respect: It is yet certainly in true construction of the phrase, an implicit determination of some Time, at least of the Continuance and beginning both, within some latitude: or else such command of taking Time is altogether frivolous and idle. In that (as hath been said) it abundantly suffices to command the Duty; and then Time (such indeterminate and common Time) will be sure to attend it. And this will appear, if the question be but put, why one did bid, take Time. The answer must be, Either because the thing will require some remarkable Continuance: Or that a man is not forward to begin to set about it, or the like; To remedy which, such command is given, bidding a man determine some Time to himself for such an action. And specially their whole aim in their discourses, is to have the Continuance to be wholly left to the Church's determination, as a mere appendix to the Public Worship. III. Yet this seems all our Adversaries grant Moral in the fourth Commandment. 3. All this notwithstanding, it may perhaps be questioned by him that shall advisedly read our adversaries books, Whether they setledly grant any more than such indeterminate (or common) Time, to be the Morality of the fourth Commandment? Namely, That, it being Morall-Naturall (as they speak) to have a Public Worship. It is also, consequently, to have a Time for it. But they admit not, that the Law of Nature (or the fourth Commandment Morally) doth command any determinate Time in any respect: any determinate Continuance, or determinate revolution, or determinate beginning of Time; but leaves all (they say) to the Church to determine what it pleases. Now this, so fare as we can understand, is to command nothing of Time at all; having before proved, that such Time, (indeterminate and common) falls not at all under a Law properly. iv Though they call it solemn Time. We confess they also talk oft, of a solemn Time for Worship, of a set, regulated, stinted, sufficient Time: And much further too they seem to go now and then, as we shall see hereafter. But then again it other Times, they seem quite to fall off from all, while they speak only of a necessary sequel of a Morality, and make Place altogether equal in Religion with Time; and Time to be a mere adjunct and circumstance, A Time is due to God's Worship, as to all other things. C. D. pag. 22. wholly left to the Church, and to be no otherwise due to the Worship of God, then to all other Things. And what can this be more than indeterminate and common Time merely? Which belongs no more to the fourth Commandment, (or even to the first Table,) than it doth to the fifth Commandment, or the whole second Table, for the affirmative part of it. For God (to instance only in the fifth Commandment) enjoining to Honour Father and Mother, and one part of Honouring them, being to give attendance upon them, and to do that which they set us about, (which cannot be done but in Time, as all know) this, of necessity, carries Time along with it, viz. Indeterminate and common Time, (which is only a necessary (that is a natural) sequel of a Morality, as they speak of their Time in Religion,) and to be determined only by their command; and so for all other Superiors. Such Time than is the Morality of the fifth Commandment, as much as of the fourth: But indeed of neither; being only a Physically necessary attendant of every Duty to God or Man. And the obeying of Superiors, determining any such Time for such Duty, comes under that Commandment, which requires obedience unto Superiors; which is the fifth Commandment: Though the Duty itself to be performed, belong to the first Table, as being a Worship of God. But of this more hereafter, only we hold it necessary, here to give a touch to this, which is perhaps one of the fundamental mistakes in this question. Into which error (besides their misdevotion to the Quamdiu, specially of the fourth Commandment for a whole day to be sanctified,) the great schoolman seems, to have led them the way, who thus resolves. [It is Moral, saith he, that man should depute some Time of his life for the service of God: Aquin: 2.2. q. 122. a. 4. ad 4. for there is in man, a kind of natural inclination, that to every thing necessary there be a Time appointed: as to our bodily refection, sleep, and the like.] But this is both improperly, and impertinently spoken, (under favour:) Improperly, to say, It is Moral to depute or appoint a Time for every action; which whether it be deputed or not, by an absolute necessity of Nature, must and will attend upon every action, as an inseparable adjunct thereof. Impertinently, to make that the Morality of the fourth Commandment, which may be as well said (in his sense) to be the Morality of the fifth, or any else of the ten in the affirmative part (as we shown before;) and as well, of deputing some place for the service of God; which he that should say were the Morality of the fourth Commandment, should speak both impertinently and falsely. For Place, so considered, belongs not (no more than Time) to any one particular Commandment of the Decalogue, fourth, or fifth, or any; to none properly, in a Moral sense (as we here take it,) but to all, one as well as another, in a Physical sense, necessarily, that is, unavoidably, whether it be appointed, or not. 4. Before we pass from Time indeterminate, V Great efficacy in Time indeterminate applied to Religion. we must by no means forget, the efficacy that there is in the quantity or proportion even of such Time, as it may be voluntarily applied, by a man's affections towards Religion, and the businesses thereof, which is God's Glory, and the Souls Good together: (which conjunction of those two Gods glory, and the souls good, it is necessary often to remember throughout this whole Controversy; the rather because our Adversaries seem much to forget it in their books, making very little and seldom mention of the Souls good in all this Question) Now we say, both these businesses together, may be, & are exceedingly forwarded or kept back, according to a man's voluntary lengthening out, or shortening the Continuance of his attendance upon God; where it is left free, and his spirits are able to hold out, & so by the frequent Reiteration or seldomenes, where there is no just impediment. He who so gives God longest and oftenest Time, unquestionably honours Him most in his heart, & increases in it: And he less, that bestows a scantier & seldomer Time upon God's worship, of his own accord merely. And this is yet more evident with Relation to the souls good; which consisting: 1. In knowledge of matters of Religion: 2. In Memory of them: 3. In Affection for God, and against sin: 4. In Comfort: (And all these Tending to, and Ending in Eternal Salvation) All this is most remarkably and Infallibly Advanced, or kept bacl by the Continuance of Time, longer or shorter, and the Reiterations, oftener or seldomer (even Indeterminately and merely voluntarily) of attendance upon Religion, and the Duties of God's Worship. And accordingly a man's love and affections to God, his Religion and Worship, and his own souls good; may be, and are exceedingly tried and demonstrated to his own conscience (or to any other that knows it) by the enlargement or straightening of his Time Voluntarily, and the Repetition of his attendances on Religious performances, usually or rarely. He that bestows much and often Time upon such Duties, even Voluntarily, and not being Determined to them before hand, doth Infallibly love the Duties: and he loves them not, that having no just hindrance, doth not bestow much and often Time upon them, even of his own voluntary accord, without any Antecedent necessary Determination. Also, (supposing an Equality of Ability, and Blessing:) a man may judge who bestows most and oftenest Time upon Religion, by the increase in knowledge and Piety: And who is wisest for his soul, and will make best progress in Piety by observing the Continuance and Frequency of Time Voluntarily bestowed upon God and his Worship. So that these two respects of Time, the Quamdiu or Continuance, and the Quoties or Frequency, are in themselves, and in their nature, even Indeterminately and Voluntarily applied, very Material (and, as we may say, Substantial) circumstances to Religion, as we said before for learning and such like Civil businesses (And much more then, if wisely & strongly Determined, as we shall see afterward) But so is not the Quando, or season of beginning, VI Not of the Quando unless by accident. indeterminately and voluntarily: For so it is of no efficay nor value toward Religion in its nature: Although by accident it may sometimes prove considerable, as 1. by hastening, or delaying when a man's bodily spirits are in Temper, or Distemper: Or 2. He may have more or less help toward any duty of worship: Or 3. The Continuance or Frequent Reiteration of any Duty (or Duties) may be thereby furthered or hindered: Or 4. That he shall gain or lose altogether an opportunity of performing some particular Duty of Solemn worship to God. Such like accidents, may commend or discommend possibly, the haste or delay, of beginning to Worship God at any Season voluntarily; but else in itself, the Quando, or Season of beginning, indeterminately, is of no importance to the glory of God, or the good of Souls. Neither yet is it any proof of a man's affection or disaffection to Religion, or any Duty of God's Worship. For a man may begin it at this or that Season, either out of willingness to take in hand the Duty, or out of willingness to be soon rid of the Duty: And he may defer it out of fear of interruption, and that he may be freer and fit for it after a while: Or out of unwillingness to perform the Duty at all. Of which our unhappy Experience affords every man too many instances, even in his own heart. So that this difference (formerly noted in Civil actions) between the Quando, the Season of beginning, and the other two respects, the Quamdin or Continuance, and the Quoties or Frequency, is also clear in Religion, That these (even Indeterminate) are of main importance and very material Circumstances in their Application: and the other is of no Validity in itself, toward Religion and God's Worship; which Notion we shall anon make just use of more than once, in convenient place. And now we come to our second Consideration of Time in Relation to Religion, and the Worship of God, VII. Solemn Time. which we call Solemn Time. The nature of which we describe to be [That it requires Duties of Worship to attend it] that is, That whosoever be the Determiner of any of the respects of Time, 〈◊〉 doth by his determination, oblige and necessitate (as far as his Authority reaches) to Duties of Religion and Solemn Worship, according to the respects of time determined, As namely— 1. For continuance. 1. The Quamdiu or Continuance being Determined, and made Solemn (as for instance an Hour together) it requires, or the Determiner by it, and for it requires, Duties of Worship, and of Religion, to fill it up, viz. wholly: And so either— 1. Some One duty to be extended to it, to all the Time, as to pray or read the whole hour long, Or— 2. Divers Duties to be multiplied for it, as Praying, Reading, Singing, or the like, which together may be drawn out to the whole length, of the Continuance (the hour) determined. 2. For Frequency. 2. So the Quoties or Frequency, being Determined and made Solemn (as for instance, three times a day) it requires, or the Determiner thereby requires, a Reiteration of Duties of Religion and Solemn Worship, either— 1. The same that were formerly practised, as Prayer, or Reading: Or— 2. Others of like Religious Nature, Hearing or Teaching others, or singing to God as often as the Determined Revolution comes about. 3. For the Quando or Season. 3. Also the Quando, or Season of beginning, being Determined and made Solemn, (as for instance; Such a day of the week, the first day, or the last, or such an hour) it requires, or the Determiner accordingly requires, at that Season, a present performance of some duty of Religion, either— 1. Any one, if there were no express mention of this or that particular Duty, together with the Determination of the Season: Or— 2. That particular Duty which was then mentioned if any were so, as: At such an hour, pray: On the 14. day of the first Month, keep the Passeover. VIII. It is more or less Solemn, as more or less strictly determined. This we say, is clearly the nature of all Solemn Time, that is, of all Time Determinate, if Antecedently determined either by God or man: And all such Determinate Time, is properly Solemn, and more than Common Time. Even though the Determination be but Remiss, and but in any one Respect: But according as the Determination is more or less complete, either in regard of the respects combined, or of the Exactness of the Determination; So the time may be counted more or less Solemn. And so a Determination of any two of the respects of Time jointly, makes it more Solemn then of any one alone; and a Determination of all three together, more Solemn then of any two: Also a strict and punctual Determination makes it more Solemn (in any of the respects, or in all) than a Remiss Determination doth. And a Conclusive Determination, yet more Solemn than an Initial Determination. And lastly an Exclusive Determination (as much as it may be found or admitted upon any consideration general or particular, of which we shall see somewhat anon) makes it most Solemn of all. But still it must be remembered in each respect, IX. It requires Religious duties to attend it. That as (according to our former discourse) Time Indeterminate, and Common Time, attends naturally upon duties of Religion, in as much as it is not possible in nature to perform them at all without such attendance of Time: So Duties, at least Indeterminate, attend Religiously upon Solemn Time: in as much as it is not possible, in Religion, to observe it aright, without such attendance of some Duties or other. And Duties of Worship are as Necessary Theologically to the observation of Solemn Religious Time; as Indeterminate or Common Time is Physically Necessary, to the performance of any Duty: So that unless the Determination of that Solemn Time be in itself sinful (as in some considerations it may be in men's Determinations, as we shall see) It would be sin, not to present or proportion Duties, according to the Determination made; namely, 1. During the whole Continuance: 2. Upon every Revolution: 3. At the particular Season of the Time Determined. Only it must not be forgotten, That, X. Yet admits of a Reservation. If any Authentic Reservation, or Dispensation, were made together with the Determination of such solemn Time in any respect; Or be sufficiently delivered afterwards by the Authority that makes that Determination; namely and specially by God (whose Authority is most sacred, and undeniably absolutely supreme in every thing) or even by any Superior: Such Reservation or Dispensation, for any particular case to interrupt the Determination and solemnity in any respect, may be, and aught to be allowed, without imputation of sin, or check of Conscience; and yet for the residue, the Determination to stand strong and firm. Of which we shall see some considerable Instances hereafter. And the like is to be yielded, where a mans own Vow hath determined any Time to himself: If the Reservation were made together with the Determination. But afterward he hath no power to put in a reservation at his own pleasure upon the change of his mind: Only he may make use of any such, as Gods command in some other consideration may necessitate him occasionally to give way unto. As for instance: A man may by Vow determine to himself such a Day wholly to be spent in Humiliation, Prayer, and Fasting. From this now no mere change of his own mind afterward, nor ordinary occasion of worldly business can dispense with him for any part of the whole Day: Unless with such Vow he did reserve a liberty to admit such or such Interruptions. But the Providence of God may interrupt him; and he then without any present sin, may give way to some necessary occasions, which admit not of a delay, whether concerning others or himself. Such namely as God not only allows, but even commands to interrupt any Time by Himself determined: as, Quenching of a Fire, Resisting of an Enemy, Affording necessary help to a sick person, a travelling woman, or the like. And if there were any sin, it was in making the Vow too strictly without such Reservation. But where God hath not appointed a Reservation, in Times by Him determined, there a man's own Vow making a Determination of Time to himself, will tie him fast, so far as he made no Reservation together with the Determination itself; even though it should prove some kind of outward inconvenience or prejudice to himself to observe it so strictly. For as an Oath to man, because God is called for a witness in it, will bind him fast that makes it, though it be to his own hindrance outwardly in some degree: unless the matter of the Oath appear (when it should be performed) to be against some Commandment of God. So a Vow to God much more will bind any man, though he cannot keep it after, without some inconvenience to himself: unless, we say, it cross any other Command of God, in regard of some other necessary duty, or the like. XI. The profitableness of such a Determination for Religion. And now we are to proceed to consider (according to the method of the former Chapter) what profitableness, or Necessity generally there is or may be in any Determinations of Time solemnly, for Religion, and Solemn Worship, (and that both Conjoined and Solitary Worship) with reference also both to the kinds of Determinations in regard of the Respects of Time themselves, and of the manner of them likewise; according to Rules of Religious Reason, and Experience, and the Law of Nature, and Scripture. Here first, All the causes of a profitable and necessary Determination forenoted, agree clearly and undeniably to commend a Determination of solemn Time for Religion, and even call for it as necessary. 1. It is without doubt a most important and necessary business, XII. 1. Religion and God's worship is a most important and necessary business, and most worthy to have Time determined for it. to tender Worship to God solemnly, and accordingly to promote the Souls good. It is the most important and most necessary business of all other: God's Worship is the primary and chiefest end of Man's Creation, Being, and coming into the World, and continuing in it. And the Souls good is the secondary and next principal end of Man's life and abiding in the World. His worldly businesses, and even the good of his Body, come but in the third place to be matters of necessity or importance. If therefore for any thing it is or can be profitable and necessary to have Time determined, it is for Religion certainly, and for worshipping of God, in the first place; that He may have glory from us, and our Souls blessing from Him. And this Profit and Necessity for our Souls, is now, since the Fall, exceedingly increased; because thereby we fell from all our happiness in regard of our Souls. And so if any pretence could be alleged, that it was not necessary for Adam in innocence to have any determinate Time for Solemn Worship, (to which Question we shall give some occasional touches as we go along, it not now deserving a long dispute) However, we (to be sure) who are in a lost condition by Nature, stand in need of Time to be determined for our Souls to seek again from God (by solemn waiting upon Him) assured Reconciliation, and recovery of our lost felicity in Him. 2. By what we have in the Chapter concerning Solemn Worship, XIII. 2. It is impossible to worship God solemnly, and do any other business the while. discoursed, It appears sufficiently, that it is impossible to attend it, and other businesses of the World together at the same Time; Not only because divers Worldly businesses, in the nature of them, take up the whole of Time, (or the whole of a man for the Time) while they are doing; and so leave not room for so much as Ejaculatory Worship, or any thing toward God, or the Souls good, for some instants: But also, for that it is the proper nature of Solemn Worship (even though Solitary) to take up the whole man, and so the whole Time, whiles that Worship is presenting; and it is so much profaneness, as a man (unless in cases by God allowed) interrupts for the least moment of Time, his Solemn Worship, or affords any of that Time to any thing but God and his Soul. That therefore there may be some fit Time for Solemn Worship, N. B. and other fit Time for Worldly business, it is clearly profitable to have some Determination of Time for Religion, and in a degree necessary. It is heavenly-mindedness, and a gild of our Earthly employments, to intermingle Ejaculatory Worship with them: But it is earthly-mindedness, and adulterating our Solemn Devotions, if we willingly meddle with any Worldly thing the while, or lend any part of our bodies to it. XIV. 3. All men are naturally unwilling to employ any time upon God's solemn worship at all. 3. But the unwillingness of all men (through their natural corruption, ever since the Fall) to attend upon God even at all, or to take any just care of their own Souls, puts it out of all question, not only for profitableness, but even for Necessity, to have a Determination of Time for God's worship, and the Souls good. No Schoolboy is so unwilling to go to his book, no Galleyslave so unwilling to tug at his oar, as we are all now naturally unwilling to wait upon God, or to tender him any solemn service, at any time, all our lives long. As therefore without some Determination of Time to those for their businesses, they would never set to them at all: So no more would we. And thence it follows, that some Determination of Time for Religion, is as necessary as any part of Religion itself: Not to say now [That it is a part of Religion to observe some determinate Time] which yet we must say anon, and shall prove also, as we conceive, demonstratively; though the contrary be usually asserted even by divers Divines, who are otherwise Orthodox, about determinate Time. But however, we say, To men unwilling to bestow any Time at all upon God and their Souls, it is altogether necessary that some Time be determined for it, or else it is certain they will at no Time apply themselves to the service and solemn worship of God. Those that in fear of present death, (and so of Hell) do fall to any service of God, apprehend that Time determined to them, by the ●●●●nesse of their end; Or determine it to themselves, as apprehending an undoing eternally if they let it slip. But still that supposes, that whereas before they were unwilling, they are now become willing to serve God, and so we say, themselves determine Time to themselves: which otherwise they never would do, nor yet employ any Time indeterminately upon it. For that is voluntarily, whereas we now speak of men unwilling. 4. XV. 4. All men are in danger of manifold interruptions hindering solemn Duties of Religion. Unto this is further to be added the Consideration of the manifold interruptions that men are liable unto, hindering the performance of solemn Duties of Religion, and often offering to call them off from them, even though they be somewhat willing to perform them; and much more hazarding the prevention or divertion of such performances, if they be unwilling; unless both the one and the other be necessitated by a determination, to such a Continuance of Time, and such a Frequency of reiteration, and (even for the sake of those, or such like accidental Considerations) to such a particular season of Beginning, such a day in the week or month, or hour in the day. Hence divers, who have been careful of their attendances upon God daily, have been forced to determine to themselves, certain proportions of Time, both of Continuance and Frequency, even by vows (though with some reservations for extraordinary occasions,) and even for the Quando also, or particular season, or hour, within some latitude; and have found great profit in it, as being the only sufficient remedy of interruptions, which they have been wont to be very much troubled withal. Therefore much more is it profitable and necessary, to have (generally) some kind of determination settled, to deliver, from the mischief of interruptions, all and every sort of men. 5. Finally the want of wisdom, to share constantly, XVI. 5. All men want wisdom to judge always at the instant, when Time is convenient for Religion and God's Worship. without Antecedent deliberation, and so some Antecedent determination (by themselves or others) just proportions of Time, between God and the World, Religion and Earthly businesses, the soul and the body; makes up completely the profit and necessity of some determination for Religion, God's solemn Worship, and souls good. The most willing to serve God and bestow Time for their souls good, yet are not wise enough to judge always on the sudden, that such a Continuance is enough, or not enough, or such a reiteration sufficient, or too often; or such a season convenient, or inconvenient. And much less than such as are unwilling. And least of all, when any seeming important interruption offers to divert, or put an end to any service of God, one is about, or going about. Therefore still a determination, is both Profitable and Necessary to divide somewhat steadily between these contrary businesses of God and the World. So that to conclude this General Consideration. 1. The Importance of God's Solemn Worship. 2. The Impossibility of attending it, and other businesses together, which yet are important also in their degree. 3. The Unwillingness of all men naturally to perform any Worship to God at all. 4. The Manifold interruptions from other men and other businesses endangering to hinder from worshipping of God solemnly. 5. And lastly, The want of wisdom, to divide on the sudden, betwixt so various businesses: All these together proclaim some determination of Time for Religion, as most Profitable and Necessary. XVII. For the kinds of determinations. The next main Consideration, is of the kinds of determination, in regard of the respects of Time themselves. In which (and in the third Consideration that concerns the manner of determination,) we will in the residue of this Cham discourse only of the Profitableness of such determinations, and leave the Necessity of them to the next Chapter. Whereby we shall keep this Chapter from being over long, as also proceed more distinctly and clearly in the whole matter. XVIII. 1. The Continuance and Frequency of Time, are Profitable respects of Time to be determined for Religion. 1. Then, from the grounds laid before about Time in General, and as appliable to Learning, and from the profitableness of the Continuance and Frequency of Time, even indeterminately, applied to Religion; (noted in this Chapter) it appears, that those respects of Continuance and Frequency are both severally, and jointly, respects, that in themselves and their own nature may be substantially Profitable to be determined for Religion; And that in them there is such a materiality and validity toward the businesses of Religion, the Honour of God, and the souls good, as that a Man's profiting in Religion doth mainly depend, (other things being alike) upon the convenient largeness of Continuance, and Frequency of reiteration of Time to be determined for these purposes. For if it be large and often, he cannot but honour God, and benefit his soul much, by a conscionable observation of it. And if it be scanty and seldom, he doth honour God but a little, and can get but a little good to his soul, if any at all. Specially remembering (which must never be forgotten in this argument,) that no unwilling person doth or can, afford God or his soul any more Time, than what he conceives himself to be determined unto; by some vow of his own, or God's command, or some Superiors, whom he dare not disobey. So that whatsoever is left indeterminate to such, is to be reckoned as nothing, as never, any of it, employed for God and the soul. Therefore the determination of the Continuance and Frequency of Time for Religion, is so Profitable, that it cannot be too large or too frequent, if it leave but enough for bodily necessities, and and other necessary worldly occasions: Religion also being the chief and most necessary business, as hath been said. 2. But now for the Quando, XIX. 2. The season or order of beginning, hath of itself no substantial profitableness toward Religion, though accidentally it may have some. or Season of Beginning (what day of any number of days, or what hour or part of any day:) there being no validity or efficacy in it indeterminately and voluntarily applied to Religion, (as we have also showed) unless merely by accident: A determination of it, is no further profitable, then as it may Accidentally serve to secure the other respects of Continuance and Frequency before determined: As if some hours, four, or six of a day were determined, It is profitable that the beginning be determined somewhat early, that so interruptions may not prevent the observation of so many hours. Also if a whole day be determined (as for solemn humiliation once a quarter,) It is profitable to determine some particular day, some while at least before hand, least interruptions of business, not so well ordered as might have been, upon foresight of such a day determined, do disturb the orderly and religious observation of it, even by himself alone. Also so fare, as in any other accidental respect a man can foresee any help on such a day or hour, or the freedom of his own spirits, or better disposition of body, or the like, it may be profitable to him to determine such a season of beginning for himself. Otherwise it is not ordinarily profitable at all, what particular season, whether it be this day or that, the first, or third, or seventh, or tenth of that revolution, or this, or that hour, or beginning of such Continuance, that is before determined. God nor the Soul gain not, nor lose not either way. XX. The Quando season, or order of Time (that is the particular days) may be accidentally profitably determined, namely to preserve the memorial of some work of God, on such a day; and accordingly to help to affect with thankfulness, specially when appointed by God to that purpose. But we must not forget that in Religion, or toward it (that is toward some particular Consideration in Religion,) there may be some Accidental profit in some determination of the Quando or Season of Beginning some solemn Worship, (like unto which there is nothing for study or any civil business,) which we touched in the beginning of the foregoing Chapter. Namely, some Memorial of a special work of God done upon that season, that day. Of which sort God instituted divers under the Old Testament undeniably: and we say he did also one such Day under the New Testament the first Day of the week, (called therefore the Lords Day) in stead of the Old Seventh Day-Sabbath; which was in memory of Christ's rest from the work of redemption, as the former of God's rest from the work of Creation. And men also both under the Old and New Testament have instituted some particular days in memorial of God's works, as upon such days: as the days of purim in the book of Ester, and the feast of the dedication, mentioned Joh. 10.22. and instituted in the Time of the Maccabees, as we read, 1. Mac. 4.59. And, no man doubts but the Christian Church hath instituted divers such days of memorial: Our Adversaries affirming it, even of the Lords Day itself, But that we shall dispute with them about in due season. Now for the profit of these institutions, so fare, and so long as God commanded (or commands yet) any; there is, no doubt, some profit in that: by a spiritual blessing, even upon that day above another, not commanded by him. All his Ordinances being ever accompanied with a blessing unto, and upon the right observers of them; and accordingly at the very first institution of the Seventh Day Sabbath, God is said to bless it, as well as to sanctify it: Nay first to bless it, then to sanctify it, (though it was doubtless the same act) as of purpose to secure the blessing to the observers of its sanctification. (Gen. 2.3.) And withal it may serve in a degree, to quicken, not the memory only, but the affections also toward God for such a benefit, as the World's Creation, and so for the other benefits, of which some other days were appointed memorials. God's command, certainly, make these memorial lively and operative for these purposes, so long as he would have them to be so used. XXI. How far, and in what case, the Quando or particular day appointed by man only, for a memorial of any work or benefit of God may be Profitable. As for days instituted by men for memorial, some little profit there may also be in determining the particular day in a revolution; as somewhat serving to quicken and affect the mind with the occasion. But then this must also be where it is certain and clear that the day determined, is answerable to the day of the benefit; Or else if that be doubted of, it is like to affect but very little indeed: And the services also of the Day must be specially and affectingly applied to the occasion of the memorial; Or else again there will be very little (if at all any) profit by the determination of such a particular day. Likewise it is to be remembered, that upon the particular Days which God instituted under the Old Testament, XXII. The Quando, or particular days, appointed by God under the Old Testament, were ordained by Him, partly for a Typical signification, and so also had an accidental profit. But it is not 〈◊〉 with any under the New Testament appointed by God, and much less of any appointed by Men. He was pleased to put some particular typical signification, relating to Christ (the body of all those shadows) as the Apostle generally tells us of them all, Col. 2.16. So that He made them for the time being, (for that infancy of the Church) yet more profitable in this consideration of being Documents of some of the Mysteries of Christ. In which use, no Day appointed by Man of old, ever did or could serve for any Profit. Neither doth any Day now, either of Gods, or much less of Man's appointment: God having put an end to all Typical uses, by the coming of Christ in the flesh, and His suffering, and resurrection. But we say, before His coming, even the Quando, or seasons of Times determined by God, had some profit in them, in those two Considerations; and the Lords day hath still as a memorial appointed by God. But these are still but accidental Considerations, (as we said before) and not having that direct and substantial influence into Religion, that the Continuance and Frequency of Time determined hath; and namely, that the Continuance of a whole Day, in the frequent revolution of a Week (of seven Days) hath: which we say, was (together in Time) determined (Gen. 2.3.) with that seventh Day in order for the Quando or particular Day for that World: But before it in Nature, (the particular Day, that Seventh, being in Nature after one of seven) And undoubtedly, one Day of seven was determined in the fourth Commandment; And we say, That, and no more, directly and substantially commanded and determined there; (and hope to prove it sufficiently in due place & time) as being of substantial importance to Religion, and the worship of God; which God then gave out his Commandements to settle the substantials of, N. B. All other Commandments of the Decalogue are wholly substantial, and so perpetual. The Fourth then being substantial for one day in seven for Religion, This may conclude that to be the whole substance of the Commandment, and not that particular seventh day, which hath no substantiality in it; And then that one day in seven is likewise perpetual. (as appears by all the other Commandements of the first Table; & by all the Commandments of the second Table, being substantials of duty to Man.) And that the 7th- day Sabbath, though then in force, was not at all directly commanded there, nor as any part of the substance of it: as being not of any substantiality toward Religion, more than any other day of the seven; Would then have been, if then commanded by God, as that was before that time; Or then the Lords day is now, supposing it commanded now, as we do, by God, or even commanded only by the Church, as they suppose, if it be but certain that the old Day is no longer in force. In a word, This is that we say, & think we have clearly proved from the nature of the respects of Time toward Religion, (as before toward study for Learning, or any other Civil business). That the Quando, Season, or Order of Beginnings, viz. This or that particular Day, first or last of seven, or of any other number, hath no Materiality or Substantiality in it toward Religion, to make it be profitably determined, rather than such another of such a number, but only accidentally: And so in this Consideration to be greatly inferior to the Quamdiu, or continuance, as also to the Quoties, or frequency of revolution, which are so mainly profitable, as we shown before. 3. Whence it follows clearly (as was also said before in relation to Learning) That whereas a Determination of the Continuance and Frequency of Time for Religion, XXIII. Therefore there may be an alteration of it, without hurt to Religion. (whether of either of them singly, or both of them jointly) cannot be altered in any remarkable degree, without an answerable alteration in the Profit of it toward Religion; namely the Profit must needs be greater, if it be altered from a less proportion to a greater, as from half a Day, to a whole Day's continuance, and from the Frequency of one Day in seven, to one in six or five: and so the profit will be less, if altered from a greater proportion to a less, as from a whole day's continuance, to 3 or 4 hours only of a day; and from the frequency of one day in seven, to one in eight or ten only: and consequently, a determination of these respects of time, remains in the nature of it, constantly & perpetually profitable to Religion: It is quite otherwise with the Season or Order of Time for Religion. For of that there may be a remarkable alteration, as from the last Day of seven, to the first of seven, from Evening to Morning, * It is ususually taken for granted, that the Sabbath of old began in the Evening. This we do not affirm, nor yet altogether deny; but shall consider it hereafter. But now we speak of it by way of supposition, that it ●●d so begin. (or the like) and yet no alteration at all, (unless in some Accidental Considerations forenoted) in the Profit of it. In as much as still God and the Soul may have the same proportion of Time, both for Continuance and Frequency, (singly or jointly) and so as much substantial advantage, and no more, be toward Religion, in the alteration of the Season or Order of Beginning, as was before this was altered. We say again, there is no substantial convenience or inconvenience, profit or disadvantage to Religion; in the perpetuating or changing the Season or Order of Beginning, from one Day of the Week to another, or from Evening to Morning: * Whereas we say, It makes no substantial change in the profit, to alter the Beginning from Evening to Morning; We yet conceive an accidental profit by it, in that by the means of the beginning in the Morning, we are sure to have the Continuance (if for a whole Day) not to be ended while we are awake. The profit of which we shall argue hereafter. But that if no accidental Consideration recommend a Change, that Season or Order of Beginning may be perpetuated under the New Testament, which was under the Old, without prejudice to Religion: And if any Accidental Consideration do recommend a Change, that Season or Order of Beginning, the Day, or Time for beginning the Day, may be changed, and that fitly; so it be done by sufficient authority. Also in that change, It is all one, what Season or Order of Beginning be placed in the stead of the former: unless there be some particular accidental consideration that recommends one rather than another, and then that, for that cause, is fittest to be chosen and determined accordingly. And these things we affirm of the alteration of the Season or Order of Beginning under the Old Testament, from the last Day of the Week, to the first Day of the Week, and from beginning in the Evening, to beginning in the Morning. This alteration is without any substantial prejudice to Religion, so long as the Determination of the Continuance and Frequency jointly, (that is of one whole Day in seven) remains unaltered: Also it is without any substantial profit; For still there is just the same, and no more nor less advantage toward Religion, God's honour, and the Souls good, that there was before. And God altering it (as we say, He hath done) the Authority is unquestionably sufficient. And we have also sufficient ground recommending such an alteration, and such a choice, (even supposing, as our Anti-Sabbatarians do, that God hath put over this authority to the Church) not only from the Type annexed to the old Day; but from a greater benefit, then that which the Old Day was a memorial of; namely the Redemption of the World being above the Creation; and this Redemption completed in the morning of the Resurrection day: while withal, the number of a seventh-day perpetuates also sufficiently the memorial of the old Creation, and so we have a memorial of both benefits instead of one. Unto which we add, that if the Church had that supposed authority of altering the Season or Order again, (which some still ascribe to her.) and that it could see any just consideration recommending the alteration of the Lords day; the first day of the week, to any other day of the seven; or the beginning of it to any other part of the day: We would not stick to grant them, that there were no substantial prejudice to Religion (or the 4th. Commandment) Provided, they meddled not with the Continuance of a whole Day, (at which yet the Adversaries greatest spite is) nor the Frequency of one in seven, which are, as we have said, and had need to say often, and again and again, most substantially profitable to Religion. Provided also, that they begin it as soon as men wake, that so no part of the day may be out of the compass of the determined Continuance. Which how profitable it is, we shall say somewhat by & by, and more in another Chapter. But these things about the changes of the particular day, and of the beginning of the day from evening to morning, and by whose authority it is, and must be done, we shall discourse more hereafter in the proper order. Mean time, these being the general grounds in Religious reason, for the alteration, or not alteration of any of the respects of Time once determined by God, We thought it needful to give this intimation of it here, and so leave it to the Readers consideration: while we proceed to our other considerations of these respects of Time in themselves. XXIV. It is very-fitable to Religion, to have that Continuance of Time determined for it (even single) so it be with the largest that may be. 4. We say then further, (that we may first take a view of the profitableness of the two main Respects of Time single, and then afterward jointly,) That in a determination of the Continuance for Religion, (even singly considered,) There appears an undeniable profitableness: namely so fare forth as it is large; even as large, as it can possibly be made, not laying an unsupportable burden upon the Natural Spirits, nor trenching upon any present or certain Worldly Necessity, that would call for a parcel of Time during that Continuance. Yet in either case, if a Reservation for a short interruption will suffice to satisfy those Necessities, It may still be counted a determination of so long Continuance, or Time for Religion, (as for instance, a whole Day's Continuance.) notwithstanding those Reservations. We say then (again) that excepting those cases, the largest determination of Continuance, is Profitable, and more Profitable unquestionably than a less Continuance would, or could be. The illustration of this will be of use; and therefore we thus further express it, by a General Argument. [That which doth best afford, and most secure, (by being largely determined) a full conveniency. 1. For all kinds of Worship, solitarily, and conjoined in families, and the public Congregation; and. 2d. The full improvement of all Duties of Worship, to God's Honour, and the Souls Good, for knowledge and spiritual Affections; is most Profitably determined with the largest that may be. But the Continuance of Time doth all this, by being largest determined. Ergo, It is most Profitably determined with the largest that may be,] The minor alone, is that which requires clearing, and that may be thus further done. Suppose a whole Day's Continuance be determined, Here then is afforded, and secured, a full conveniency. 1. For Solitary Worship, every man or woman by themselves (without danger of hindrance or interruption ordinarily, as not lawful to be admitted, no not if other men would offer it. 2. For Family Worship also. 3. And the like for Public Worship in the Church; and in all these. 4. For all varieties of Duties; Solitary-prayer, and Reading, and Meditation; Family-prayers, Readins, Instructions, Publike-prayers, Reading and Preach of the Word, Catecheticall-examinations, Singing, Sacraments. 5 For a full room to perform all these, with seriousness, and solemnity, as we use to say. (Where note, that even our ordinary pharse commends the Continuance of Time, as that which adds to the solemnity of any Duty, and so implies it to be the chiefest Consideration of solemn Time.) 6. For a full Room to prepare the Heart for all these Duties, and. 7. To work the good of them upon the Heart effectually; to settle the knowledge of things taught, and the Remembrance and Affection of all that one hath been conversant in, whether alone, or with others. Now all this is so much the more remarkable, XXV. For divers reasons. if we consider 1. The extreme Ignorance that is in all men by Nature, and remains in very many that live within the visible Church. 2. The number of things to be known for Faith and Practice, to make a man able and willing to Worship and serve God a right, and secure his soul's salvation. 3. The dulness and stupidity of many, (of most) of the common sort, specially who cannot read. 4. The indisposedness of men's minds Naturally (besides their unwillingness) being full of the world, and thoughts of worldly profits, pleasure and honours; and these worldly thoughts not suddenly, or in an instant, chased away or made to give room to thoughts of God: As is too much found in sundry short tenders of devotions, N. B. as before and after meals, being too often nothing but outward formalities, and inward profaneness, as even men's carriage the while, doth sometime ploclaime, and their language instantly after, as much. 5. The great intention of mind, required in all the Worship of God, and the most lively spirits and strength that should be in it, according as God seeks Worshippers to Worship Him in Spirit, and requires the love (and so the service) of all our Souls, Hearts, Minds, Strengths, 6. The soul's proneness to lose suddenly any knowledge or affection it hath gotten, if it be not throughly settled and riveted upon the mind and spirit, and particularly, sometimes, If objections and temptations be not sound and throughly answered, and resisted, all that a man hath learned or thought of comes to nothing. All this together greatly recommends the profitableness and advantage of a large Continuance determined for Religion. And if we shall look upon experience, we shall find this confirmed in all sorts of men, when a man, that doth not merely vex out the Time; (which he seems to afford to God and his Soul;) attends divers hours upon religious performances; his heart cannot but be heated and stirred according to the particular matters, that have taken up those hours; and some remarkable impression must needs remain upon his heart, for a while (at least) afterward. What others than speak to him; or what specially he speak to his own heart; is like striking when the iron is hot, and that (if any thing in reason) is likely to work a settled work upon his spirit, to be still more and more for God and his soul. Whereas those that are taken off from religious thoughts by worldly, any thing soon; do apparently in experience, lose a great part (not to say, all, sometimes) of the benefit, namely, of the spiritual light of knowledge, and heat of affection, that they might have gotten in a longer Time, or seemed to have gotten in that Time which they did bestow upon Religion in a Continuance. Christian's will confess this; and worldlings manifest it. And particularly ignorants, who live in a neglect of the Sabbath, (either through their own fault, or their superiors,) do by their excuses of their ignorance, bear strong witness to this. Their language is, [We are dull headed, and hard to learn any Catechism, being not book learned; and we have no Time to learn.] Their meaning is chiefly, they have not leisure, to allot a sufficient Continuance of Time at once, being called off by one business or other, when they would (as they pretend) or do set themselves to learn. And there is much of truth in this, if they acknowledge not, (and so improve not) the Sabbaths Continuance, which rightly used, would much advance them even in one Day, And so still all pleads the profit of a large Continuance determinated. 5. XXVI. It is very profitable to Religion to have Frequency of times Determined (even single) so it be as great a frequency, as may be consistent with a man's worldly necessities, as once or twice every day. In as much as Religion and the Solemn worship of God for his honour and the good of men's souls, is a business Permanently Necessary all a man's life long: It appears also, that it is profitable to Religion to have a Determination of the Frequency of return to the Duties of it: Even as great a Frequency as can be imagined compatible with the formerly mentioned Necessities of Natural, and worldly businesses: Specially to secure a man, that his Knowledge of God, and Affections towards God; in a word, his acquaintance with God shall not be lost or diminished; As the intervention of Worldly businesses, being so directly opposite to thoughts of God for the most part (specially in spirits and hearts so corrupted, as ours now are) cannot but put in hazard. The proper prevention whereof, lies mainly therefore in the Determination of as great a Frequency of return, as may be; as suppose every day, or every morning, and every evening, that is, twice every Day (viz. of those Days, the main of whose Continuance is taken up for worldly businesses) according to the Ceremonial Law of the Morning and Evening Sacrifice, which carried along with the Duties, the Frequency of the Time of tendering them (together with a Remiss Determination, that is, within a Latitude of the Season also) And such Determination of the Frequency, even though there be nothing of the Continuance Determined at all (or only Remissly, if any) is, we say, Remarkably Profitable, to prevent strangeness in the Soul, toward God: For while, the not-Determining of any Continuance jointly with such Frequency of twice every Working-day, will assure, that it may be observed without any prejudice to a man's worldly businesses; which ordinarily (certainly) cannot but admit a looking up to God even Solemnly, every Day between morning and noon, and again between noon and a man's lying down to sleep; so that a man be Free to continue no longer, than his occasions will then permit: This very Frequency will yet keep the soul, happily, in breath, and in dutiful respects toward God. And withal, will now and then afford him the Advantage of making some Remarkable Profit, by Voluntary enlarging the Continuance of Time for Devotion, when being at it, he finds no particular business, calling him of, perhaps for an hour or more together. However, let the Continuance be never so short, yet if a man do but Affectionately tender Solemn Worship, in such Frequency Determined of Morning and Evening every Day: It must needs preserve from a Totall Decay and strangeness toward God, which in a very seldom return there would be very great danger, if not certainty of: and so proportionably, according, as such Determination of the Frequency single, were more or less Frequent: the prevention or danger of decay in Religion would without doubt be. And so the profitableness of the Determination of a very great Frequency (even single) is apparently Evident. And specially, it may be, and will be so, if (besides it,) there be for Religion a Determination made, jointly, of the Continuance with convenient largeness, and of the Revolution, also, with Convenient Frequency. Of the profitableness of which joint-Determination, XXVII. A joint determination of both the Continuance and Frequency in a convenient largeness, is singularly profitable to Religion: Even the most Profitable of all other, making the proportion so determined, the chiefest Time for Religion. we are in the next place to speak. 6. And upon the former Suppositions, it can with no Reason be denied, but such a joint Determination of the Continuance and Frequency, in a convenient largeness, is not only Profitable to Religion, but the most Profitable Determination of all other: The Determination of the greatest importance, to the main business of Religion, God's honour, and the good of men's souls; as taking in the strength of the two Substantial respects of Time, the Continuance and Frequency joined. And accordingly the Proportion of Time, therein Determined, is the chief Time for Religion, of all other. Therefore concerning this Time (or this Determination) it is a consideration of the greatest weight; by what Rules, it may be ordered wisely, and made in a Convenient, and just, and Profitable Proportion, or observed to be so: (if we speak of any already made) as namely of that of One day's Continuance in the Revolution of seven: which we say was the Substance of the fourth Commandment: Now here there may be a double consideration of the Wisdom and Conveniency of the Proportion of Time, so determined between the Continuance, and Frequency jointly. One is in regard of the total proportion Determined for Religion, and so secluded from worldly business, how so much in the whole (as for instance, the proportion of a Day in seven or the seventh part of time in the Revolution of seven days) whether that be a wise and Convenient and Profitable Determination, and not certainly too much, or certainly too little, for the chief Time for Religion: And by what Rules to judge it either Way. But this we leave the Discussion of to a following Chapter, where we shall endeavour to beat it out clearly, and at large. The other is, in regard of dividing and sharing such a proportion (as a Day comes to in seven) between the Continuance and Frequency: On which side the greatest Weight should be put, whether on the Continuance, to make that as large as may be, and so put it all into one day (as in the fourth Commandment:) Or on that side of the Frequency, and make it as Frequent as may be, every day of the seven, or even eve●● Morning, and Evening in each of the seven days, and so make the Continuance shorter; as it must needs be according to the greater Frequency. Of which we thus propound our apprehensions, in justification of the Wisdom of that Determination of God (and so the profitableness of it) of One whole days Continuance, only once in seven days; rather then oftener for Frequency, and with less Continuance. We say then— 7. That if we pitch upon an equal Proportion for the whole, XXVIII. The largest continuance with a lesser Frequency, is better than the greatest Frequency with a less continuance. (as this for Instance) it will appear more profitable by far to have the largest Continuance that may be, with a Frequency somewhat remote (as it is in the fourth Commandment) then to have the greatest Frequency that may be with a Proportionably less Continuance. And this may be evidenced, both in Reference to Religion, and also to worldly businesses; In both Respects it will be found the most Profitable Determination, to have it all upon one Day, rather than divided into parcels upon every day of the seven, or proportionably, upon six, or five, or four, or three, or two days of seven. We suppose the Proportion of a Day, is about 14. or 16. hours, namely the Ordinary waking Time of a Day, (which only can be applied solemnly to Religion, as we shall see afterward:) Now this, divided between two days, is seven or eight hours a piece; between three days is five hours a piece or little more; between four Days about four hours a piece, between five days about three hours a piece; between six Days about two hours and a half a piece; between all the seven Days about two hours a piece, XXIX. 1. With respect to Religion itself. or little more. Here now if we first consider the Businesses of Religion: We have already shown the great Profit, of a whole day's Continuance, for the divers kinds of worship, Solitary, Domestic, and Public, and for variety of Duties in each kind, and complete improvement of them all, by full space for each, and before the public (particuly) to prepare for it; and after it, to make the utmost benefit of it. But if we abate any of this Continuance by multiplying the Revolution more Frequently; and specially the more we abate of it, by the greater Frequency, as of five or six, or seven Days: Some (at least) of this benefit must be prejudiced; either the Public, or else the Domestic, or at least the Solitary worship, must be neglected in some of those revolutions: Or if all be still performed, yet much more slightly, because so scanty, and only some Duties in each kind, and not all that might well have been in a whole day's Continuance, or a very small pittance, afforded to the several Duties, and so a very weak profit to redound particularly to men's souls, by the observance of such Times. The heart would often not be brought in frame, till a great part of the Duty, and perhaps of the whole Time for the various Duties, were overpast and gone. And another while, that which was gotten of knowledge or Affection, would straightway be lost again, by Diverting the mind suddenly unto worldly Cogitations: As is more than evident unto the consciences of Christians, when after a Sermon heard on the week day, at the Market; they do (whether Necessarily or Voluntarily) immediately lay aside the thoughts of it, and engage themselves in worldly businesses. In such cases, it is a very, very little Profit, that their souls make by such attendance upon God (though for an hour or more together, and with the best help of the public Ministry:) unless the matter did very much suit with their present affections, and so sinks more than ordinarily deep into them; Or that they specially call themselves to a serious account, the next free hour they have, to settle it upon their minds and consciences by meditation and Prayer: And this they have often no leisure for on the week days, till they have even forgotten the most of what they had heard. But now in the Continuance of a whole Day, they have not only leisure, but in a manner a Necessity of laying to heart, what specially they have learned in the public Ministry. For all worldly businesses, discourses, or even cogitations, being then unseasonable and unlawful; they have now no manner of excuse, if they meditate not, of what specially may and doth concern their consciences, and of which they have been that day instructed and put in mind. And if they live among any that regard God at all, they may have help from them (for remembrance and affection both) by conference of what they have heard, even at meals: besides other Times. Neither can they have any discourse so proper as of that usually, nothing of the world being then allowed (ordinarily) as was touched before. A great deal more might be said to evidence the singular profit of having the Continuance with the largest that may be. But we shall have occasion to speak of it again in the next Chapter, and so we forbear to amplify things now. Only we must not forget to note, that if we shall take our Adversaries proportion upon the Lord's Day, namely three or four hours, (which is about that proportion, which the practice of our Church generally allots for the public worship) though we remember not, that they any where vouchsafe to name such a Proportion di●…tly: If we say, we shall take this proportion, to be solemnly observed in a week's Revolution: The matter in hand will be much more clear, that the whole proportion is more profitably determined together in one Continuance, within such a Revolution, then to have it broken into smaller Parcels, by reason of the multiplication of the Frequency. For this Proportion of three or four hours in a week, is but about two hours of a Day, if divided between two days: and if between three days, about an hour and a quarter: If between four days, about an hour in a day: If between five days not an hour for each day. If between six days, not three quarters of an hour for each, and if between 7. days, about half an hour for every day. Here now, whereas the whole three or four hours would afford some discernible, Profit if all upon one day, and so make it one Continuance (admitting them also a Reservation for going home to dinner) because there would be some convenient room for the varieties of public duties (though none at all, according to their account, for the private) and so it might work somewhat upon them: yet if it came to be lessened by division into more days, and so more Frequent Revolutions: There would be either an exclusion of Prayer, or Reading, or Singing, or Preaching, or Catechising one or other of them (not to name the Sacraments, which are not usually every week, but Baptism only occasionally, and the Lords Supper seldom oftener than once a month in any Church) which would so far forth prejudice the good that might have been gotten, by that which is so omitted; Or else very much scanty each of them, and so weaken the good to be received by every one of them singly, and jointly. XXX. 2. With respect to men's worldly businesses. But withal, on the other hand, the considerations of men's worldly callings, and necessary businesses would suffer no less (if not more) sensible prejudice; by dividing the Time between more days, then if it were all put into one. It would hinder journeys, and day-labourers, and all men of much business exceedingly. For the public worship being then to be waited on, it could not be (in most places of the country particularly, and for the sake of weaker bodies) till about nine a clock in the morning, or toward three in the afternoon (if the beginning were not in the morning) and this would marvellously disappoint travelling, and indeed every work, which could no● at the clock striking (as one may say) be laid down; and the ●●r those that dwell a mile or two from Church, as much Time would be spent in going to the public worship and home again, if not more, then in the worship itself; and so it would be a most grievous interruption and hindrance to all their worldly businesses. Neither doubt we, but if the consent of men were asked one by one, the most part by fare, both of good and bad, the willing, and unwilling, those that love the service of God, and the business of their souls, and those that love it not; All would give their voices, to have the whole Time (how much or how little soever the porportion were for hours) upon one Day in such a revolution, rather than upon more frequent Days with a shorter Continuance, that so they that love God's worship, and their souls good might have more full scope for that. And they that love the world better, might have the less interruption in their worldly businesses, and more freedom to follow them. From which discourse, before we pass to another Consideration. XXXI. A consequence from thence. Let us make bold to put the reader in mind of a consequence, that we suppose will undeniably follow, if these premises stand good, namely, That unless fourteen, or sixteen hours be too large a proportion to be determined for God's Honour, and the good of all men's souls, within the revolution of seven Days: then the dermination of one whole Day's Continuance (for so many hours) in such a revolution, will prove so substantially a profitable determination for all men in all ages; [As they will find it a very hard task, that will afterward go about to prove, either that this determination was not from the beginning, considering what is said (at least towards it) Gen. 2. Or that it is not perpetual] since there is certainly no express repeal of such a proportion, of Continuance within that revelution. And whether now under the Gospel, such a proportion be too large in the whole, as we wish the reader's conscience to bethink itself seriously even now that he is upon this discourse: So we shall give him a further occasion to resolve, in a Chapter or two after. Mean Time, we have one Consideration more yet to add, about the kinds of determination of these respects of Time; and which is the last of this sort. 8. XXXII. How the determination of the Quando or season is profitable. As a joint determination of the Continuance and Frequency so largely, as hath been said, must needs be Profitable for all men alike, because all men are a like concerned in the Worship of God and care of their souls good, (To which tend all the determinations of Time religiously:) so it cannot be denied, but upon the supposition of such a determination, there will be at last a profitableness (accidental,) not only of some Quando, season or order of beginning, but of the same, for all that live near one another; at least so fare, as to secure the helping one of another in family, or public Worship, and to prevent hindering one another, even in solitary Worship, or the admitting of hindrances one from another. Only it is to be observed withal, that as all accidents are in Nature after the substances to which they are accidents, though they are oft together for Time; And again all separable accidents may be after in Time: So this accidental determination of the Season or order of Time for Religion, is in Nature after the substantial determination of the Continuance and Frequency, even though possibly, it was in Time determined together, as the Seventh Day from the Creation, together with one Day of seven, Gen. 2. Supposing, we say, the particular Day determined to Adam the same moment with the other, yet was the determination of it after it in Nature, as being but merely accidental to the business of Religion, for which infallibly, the determination of one Day in seven was made. And if what we have discoursed of the alteration of the order without prejudice to Religion, be good, it might possibly be determined some while after in Time. But however, it must not be forgotten, that the particular order or season of beginning (this or that Day) is only accidentally, and in no sort substantially profitable to Religion, as hath been proved before. XXIII. For the manner of Determinations. And so we come to the third and last main Consideration about the profitableness of determinations of Time for Religion; namely about the manner of determination of any of the respects of Time, or all of them. 1. No Exclusive Determination is profitable. 1. Here is specially to be noted, That no Exclusive Determination for the general business of Religion, can be conceived to be Profitable. That is, It cannot be profitable to have a Determination of so much Continuance at once, and never longer, as well as not shorter; and of so frequent a revolution, and never oftener, as well as no seldomer; and at such a season, or in such an order for beginning, that is, on such a particular Day, or part of the Day, Evening or Morning, this or that Hour, and never sooner, as well as no later; never at any other Hour, or on any other Day. This, we say, cannot be profitable to Religion; because Religion, in both the intendments of it, God's honour, and the good of men's souls, is every man's chiefest and most important business of all other, all the time of his life. The attendance therefore upon this, must never be forbidden strictly (which is in the nature of an Exclusive Determination) in any respect: But it is ever lawful (not now to say necessary) to prosecute the business of Religion, both voluntarily, without determination of the Time beforehand, as also to determine Time for it, where the necessities of a man's worldly condition, and worldly employments, can and doth admit it. It is true, that if God had made undeniably any exclusive determination for the general of Religion, we must not have argued against it; for as much as His Will (so far as we can know it) is the only Rule of Good. But according to the Principles He hath put into us, both in Nature, and from Scripture together, We cannot possibly conceive it profitable to His Honour, which is infinite: (His glorious Name is exalted above all blessing and praise, Neh. 9.5.) to have a restraint put upon mankind, never to employ Time upon His immediate service, longer, or oftener, or sooner, than according to any particular strict Exclusive Determination: Much less profitable to Men, their Souls being their best part, and their good being advanced even toward an eternal happiness the more, the larger proportion of Time is by them employed in Religion. Therefore also no such Exclusive Determination is to be found any where in Scripture, with relation to the general business of Religion. Only for some particular occasions of Worship, God was pleased of old to determine some Time exclusively, as the eighth Day from the birth of a Child for Circumcision; and the eighth Day for the sacrificing of the firstling Males of Cattles, neither sooner, nor later: and some others of the like nature may be found. By'r these also, (which is a remarkable note) are only Determination of the Quando, Season, or Order of Time. And no such (that we can remember) are found Exclusive, even for particular occasions of Worship, either for the Frequency, (unless such, as were only once in a year to be performed as the Passeover, and such like feasts of memorial of particular benefits: or once in a life, as Circumcision of old was, and Baptism is now held to be) or much less for the Continuance, it being never forbidden (to say no more now) to give God the longest Continuance at any Time, when any Continuance at all was determined. But infallibly certain it is, as we said, that for the general business of Religion, the Scripture knows no Exclusive Determination. Also it is not possible for Man to obtain any such Wisdom, (unless God would miraculously reveal it, which cannot be imagined in this case) that he should be able to say antecedently, [My worldly occasions, or other men's, will never at any Time while we live admit any more, or oftener, or sooner, than this particular Continuance, Frequency, and Season expressed in this or that Determination, made, or to be made, by us, or any other.] No Exclusive Determination than can be conceived to be profitable for the general business of Religion. All which we note, as well to prevent the mistake of any unjudicious Conscience, who, specially by the suggestion of others, might fancy perhaps the fourth Commandment enjoining one Day of seven for Religion, to be an Exclusive Determination; and that it were forbidden to employ any other Time (considerably) upon God's worship, or looking after their souls; as also (and that chief) to confute the untowardness of some profane Cavillers, Objection prevented. who though they are far enough from observing the Continuance and Frequency Religiously of one Day in seven, according to the fourth Commandment; yet dogmatically and most perversely contend, that if that Commandment be in force for one Day in seven for Religion, than it is also for six Days working and following worldly business, equally necessarily: And that so it is equally a sin to go to hear a Sermon on a Weekday, as to work upon the Sabbath; and that the fourth Commandment forbids the one, as well as the other. Now this were to make the fourth Commandment an Exclusive Determination. The contrary whereunto may sufficiently appear from what hath been already said. Yet for more complete conviction (and perfect rooting out any such scruple in the minds of any that are not wilful) we add, [That it is most evident, That God never meant the fourth Commandment for an Exclusive Determination] nor was it ever so, no not to the Jews, (and therefore neither can it be so to us now) as both Gods other determinations, and men's also, even strictly, besides remiss ones, doth undeniably manifest. For we find in Scripture, that not only before the fourth Commandment (given with the rest, in that Majestic manner on Mount Sinai,) the Feast of the Passeover, and herein two Days, the first and the last of unleavened Bread, were determined by God himself, Exod. 12. But afterward in the Books of Moses. He besides determined the Feast of Weeks, and that of Tabernacles (this again having two Days, the first, and the last as Sabbaths) and the Days of the New Moons, every month, and the Day of Atonement, yearly, and daily also (every Day) a double Frequency of Time, for the Morning and Evening Sacrifice. All much Times, were indeed specially instituted for particular reasons, (except the daily Frequency of the Morning and Evening Oblation) and had to the Jews, Typical relations, each of them, in the particularities of their seasons, and the manner of their observations: Yet also were all those Solemn Day's serviceable likewise to the General business of Religion, for increase of Knowledge of God and Affection toward Him, (though in no proportion, comparable with the Weekly Sabbath, by reason of their Rarity and its Frequency) as appears both in reason, and by the Shunamites using to go to the Prophet upon the New Moons. By all which it is most undoubted, that God meant not the determination of the Weekly Sabbath, for an Exclusive determination of Time for the General of Religion. As also by that Holy Men did yet further determine Times, for themselves (as David, and Daniel three Times every Day for Prayer) and for others too, as the Days of Purim, and the Feast of Dedication forenoted, and Extraordinary Days of Fasts, upon extraordinary occasions: Besides all voluntary Times, employed by pious souls, every where intimated. Likewise the General Precepts of [Praying continually, and without ceasing] (and many such like, formerly mentioned, and others to be named anon) do certainly imply, that men ought to bestow more Time upon Religion, God's solemn Worship, and their own, and others souls, (as they can redeem opportunity,) than God hath expressly determined, these being remiss determinations (as we shall show by and by, together with the reason of them.) There is then no such thing as an Exclusive determination to be fancied with relation to the General of Religion; as being expressly contrary to all the Rules, and practise of it in Scripture, and the Church in all ages. Only we grant, (and desire it may be remembered) that no man may determine (either for himself, or much less, for others) Time in any of the respects, So as 1. to March for Holiness and Necessity, with Gods determined Times; which is the fault of the Popish Holidays, all of them, besides the Idolatry of some of them, being specially intended to the honour of Creatures, Angels, and Saints, the blessed Virgin, and others. As also in their Canonical hours they put special Holiness. Or 2. thereby to hinder the necessary businesses of men's worldly callings: wherein again the Papists offend, in making their Holidays so frequent, as that they are exceeding burdensome, specially to the poorer sort. And this also is possible to be a fault, even in voluntary attendances upon Religion sometimes; If any do it so, as thereby to neglect their callings ordinarily and remarkably, they offend; though not against the fourth Commandment properly; but only against the indulgence therein granted of six Days work ordinarily; and directly against the eighth Commandment (or any other) that properly concerns their particular callings. But, avoiding these errors; we say, no Church, nor no Man, is to be blamed, but commended rather, for determining, (or voluntary applying) any Times for Religion, the solemn Worship of God, and looking after the soul's good; the weekly Sabbath, (or Lord's Day) of God's determination, being not Exclusive, nor any other, as we have said. XXXIV. 2. An initial determination is certainly profitable. 2. In the next place, we affirm that an initial determination may be certainly profitable to Religion. Namely, [" Where there is but so much wisdom, that by determining so much Continuance, or such a Frequency, (or such a Season,) there will be (or can be) no prejudice, to bodily necessities, and necessary worldly occasions.] Not as concluding, so much, and so often, to be enough, for the whole, or chief Time for Religion, (for that were to make it a Conclusive determination, of which our next Consideration is to speak;) But that so much, and so often, may infallibly be allowed; And therefore so much, and so often (at least,) may be determined, and as for a beginning, for which cause we count the term of an initial determination proper. And this will, according to the proportions of it, be so fare forth serviceable, and profitable to Religion, and particularly against unwillingnesses, and unnecessary interruptions. As for instance; it may be, at least for some men, and so hath been found in experience, very profitable to determine to themselves, at least a quarter of an hour in the morning every Day, and as much at night, or toward night, for Religion, and solitary attendance upon God: And such a like proportion (or more) for their Family-devotions, morning or noon, night or evening. That at least, we say, so much, so often, shall be employed, and when they have freedom, they may enlarge the Continuance, specially (or sometimes even the Frequency) voluntarily, and according to occasions. And this is properly an initial determination; and it cannot be denied, but such an one, may be profitable, as hath been showed. XXXV. A conclusive determination, is not profitable in some cases. 3 Now for a Conclusive determination, and namely of both the Continuance and Frequency jointly; seeing that it is the chief determination of Time for Religion generally, or the determination of the chief Time for the General of Religion (which come all to one, as hath been intimated before:) There is a twofold Consideration to be noted: one showing in what cases, such a determination can with no probability be conceived to be profitable to Religion: The other declaring upon what conditions, it may be certainly and infallibly profitable. For the first of these, this we say, [That a Conclusive determination of the Continuance and Frequency of Time jointly, cannot in all probability be profitably made by such persons as want either such wisdom, or willingness, or authority, as is plainly requisite to a determination of this Nature, viz. of the chief Time for Religion.] For 1. if they want wisdom, 1. When men want wisdom. either to set out the whole proportion, as how many hours in all in so many Days, or to distribute this proportion fitly between the Continuance and Frequency: as they may err in either case, and on either hand in either case; so in all probability they are like to err one way or other. If they be affectionately zealous for Religion, they may possibly err, in determining too large a proportion, too long a Continuance, and too frequent a Revolution. On the other side if they be solicitous for worldly business, they may determine too little a proportion, and so too short a Continuance, or too seldom a Revolution, or both. And if they mistake not the proportion, and that they should not consent to what we before discoursed of the greater profit in the largest Continuance, as perhaps some may not assent to it; then again they may err (perhaps not a little) in sharing the proportion between the Continuance and Frequency; and both fail of advancing Religion so much as they might have done, as also greatly prejudice men's worldly businesses, which in conclusion, may happen to fall upon Religion again: For that men in those cases will be apt to make too bold with the religious Time, under pretence of necessity at least. In a word, this Time, being to be the necessary and ordinarily sufficient chief solemn Time of Worship, Where there wants wisdom to judge. 1. What is necessary, and 2. What is ordinarily sufficient for the chief solemn Time, in regard both of Continuance & Frequency jointly; It may as well be conceived that a blind man will find the right way, where there are divers turn (of which he is not ware) as that there can be a profitable Conclusive determination made for Religion, by such Persons. XXXVI. 2. Or willingness. 2. If they want willingness to employ Time in religious Duties themselves, and so to have others employ Time in it; It is yet much more certain, that the determination will not be profitably made. For they must needs, both be apt to think not so much, or so often to be necessary, as indeed is, (and so to misse-judge the whole proportion) counting much less, or seldomer sufficient, than they should do: As also, howsoever, for want of affection, to forbear to determine themselves or others, to any such proportion, as they have no will should be observed. Of which there needs no other proof, then that of too many pretenders at large to Religion; that are so fare from determining any Time to themselves or their families, where they think themselves wholly left at Liberty, that they never so much as observe any voluntarily in any constancy, and much less, have any families-devotions (scarce thanksgivings before or after meals) at all, through the whole years, or their whole lives. What likelihood then can there be, that such, or even much better than they (supposing them to be yet in the rank of the unwilling) will ever make a profitable determination of the necessary and ordinarily sufficient chief solemn Time for Religion. As soon will a covetous man tax himself and his posterity to as much, as is fit for such to pay, weekly and yearly, even to the world's end; who yet by his good will, cannot afford to part with a fare smaller proportion; and grudges at any thing that is laid upon him, though fare short of his due. XXXVII. 3. Or authority. 3. Also if any want Authority, to secure themselves in the Time determined, or to awe unwilling inferiors, as also to awe and satisfy their minds somewhat by the clear equity and reasonableness of the proportion determined, and distributed between the Continuance & Frequency: The determination, in all probability, cannot be profitably, even though it should be wisely, determined. For it would never be constantly observed by any whom it was made for. If inferiors made it to themselves, they would be oft taken off, by the command of untoward superiors: And they would not know what to do, because they are not Masters of their own Time. Again, It is certain before hand, that all unwilling Inferiors would despise it, and neither observe it themselves, nor suffer others (that they had under them) to observe it, if they stood in no Awe of the Authority commanding. And such a thing foreseen, concludes any determination (or Law) to be so fare forth altogether unprofitable. Likewise, what ever wisdom, or worldly Authority such should have as made that determination; if they made it not with such clear evidence of equity and reason on both sides, that so much, and so often were necessary, and no less nor no seldomer; and again that so much, and so often were ordinarily sufficient for the chief solemn Time, and no more at once, nor no oftener were requisite, the unwilling would be sure not to regard the determination when they were out of sight and hearing: as not holding themselves bound to so much, or so often; and so it would be still unprofitable in reference to such: And on the other side, the conscientious would be doubtful whether so much, and so often were ordinarily sufficient for the chief solemn Time; and so neither would attain a sufficient profitableness to them. 4. Most of all, Such a Determination, in all probability, XXXVIII. 4. Or all these. will not be profitable, if made by such, in whom there is a want in all these respects, of Wisdom, Willingness, and Authority sufficient for such a Determination of such consequence and importance as this is of. And now whether any man, or number of men (even within the Church) may not be found wanting in some, or all, of these requisites, to make such a Conclusive Determination of the Continuance and Frequency of Time jointly, to make up the ordinarily sufficient and necessary chief solemn Time for all men, as we shall discourse in a following Chapter shortly. So we refer it to the Readers conscience in the mean while: And go on to add the other Consideration opposite to this; Namely, 4. That that cannot but be a singularly profitable Determination, XXXIX. When all these meet the determination Conclusive, is very profitable. which is made Conclusively in both the respects of Continuance and Frequency jointly, by such, whose Wisdom, Affection to Religion, and Authority, is every way undoubted. For hereby all scruple, and pretence of scruple, will be taken away, about the necessity and sufficiency of this Time so determined for the ordinary chief solemn Time for Religion; and the Unwilling will be as much awed, as by any other Law whatsoever; and the Willing have a full and free liberty to attend it, rejecting all unnecessary Interruptions from whomsoever. Now all this is unquestionably true of God, who did determine in this sort conclusively, the Continuance to be a whole Day, and the Frequency jointly, that it should be one in seven, (in the fourth Commandment, undeniably to the Jews) as the necessary, and ordinarily sufficient chief solemn Time of Worship. Therefore also we can think no otherwise, but that this Commandment, in this regard, is a substantially-profitable Commandment for all men in all ages to be bound unto. And because we find not any certain Repeal of it afterward, we cannot but think, according to our Rule formerly laid down about such Laws substantially-profitable, that it is Moral and Perpetual. Neither doubt we but the conscientious Reader will be of the same mind too, if we can prove (as we even now intimated) that no man, or number of men, to whom this may be supposed to be left by God under the New Testament, can make the Determination in any proportion so profitable for Religion, God's honour, and the good of all men's souls and consciences. But of that, as we said, hereafter. We have yet some further Considerations to add, about the profitableness of the manner of Determinations. The next is, XI. A remiss determination is profitable for trial of affections. 5. A Remiss Determination, namely of the Continuance or Frequency of Time for Religion, may also be profitable, partly to recommend the importance of Religion, to be attended as a chief business, and particularly in such and such Duties which are named, as being of chiefest importance to Religion: and partly withal to intimate a mind in the Superior that makes it, to try the affections of Inferiors to the business of Religion generally, or any particular business of Religion, which such Determination may particularly concern; by intimating somewhat generally about the proportion of Time for it; but referring the speciality of it to their minds. As we thus find God making a Remiss Determination of the Continuance for Prayer, Col. 4. [Continue in Prayer] which implies some convenient proportion of Continuance to be ordinarily allotted to it, but leaving the specialty of it to men's own affections, which accordingly are exceedingly tried by such continuance voluntarily prolonged. They whose affections are strongest to the duty, and the business of the duty, conversing with God, and wrestling with Him for all manner of blessings, do undoubtedly continue longer, and those whose affections are weaker, do continue less while. Understanding this of the right praying of the heart and soul, and not the lip-labour of the tongue, or the outward continuance upon ones knees, (suppose even in secret) where the mind is distracted by many fancies. For so a man may continue a long while about the duty, and yet continue but a little while in the duty; Pray but a little while, for want of godly, at least strong affections. But if a man pray all the while he is at prayer, It is undeniable, that he hath the strongest affections, that continues longest. So also God hath b●en pleased to give out a Remiss Determination for the Frequency of reiteration of Prayer, [Praying always] Eph. 6.18. Of Meditation; [Thou shalt meditate therein day and night] Jos. 1.8. And of the Lords Supper often, by those phrases, [Do this as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me. And, as oft as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, 1. Cor. 11.25, 26.] Where the two former for Prayer and Meditation imply a very often reiteration, yet not prescribing exactly the number how often: and the other for the Lords Supper, intimating some Frequency, yet not determining specially, so, or so often. So in each leaving the specialty to men's affections (and occasions.) And no man can deny, but here also, it is a singular proof of men's affections to God, in His sight, when they look up to Him, and meditate of Him very frequently. They doing it most often, that have strongest affections; because also it may be done suddenly in the midst of worldly businesses many times; and in divers worldly businesses, a man may continue a remarkable Time in Ejaculatory Prayers and Meditations, and not hinder himself a jot, which now he that hath present, and strong Affections for God will not fail to do. And he who doth it but seldom, doth hereby discover (at least to God, who searches the hearts) that his Affections are but weak and faint to God-ward. And so it is for the Lord Supper, he that comes oftenest (as a man aught, with spiritual remembrance, and inward celebration of Christ's Death, and spiritual hunger and thirst, after the benefit of it, to be anew sealed to Him by the Sacrament) manifests unquestionably, most spiritual Affection to Christ: And he who comes seldomer, shows his Affections to be more sleight and slack (understanding it still, where there is no just present impediment.) And for the trial and discovery of such variety of Affections towards Him, (besides other Reasons which His infinite wisdom may have) God is pleased to make these Determinations remiss, and no more. And for the purpose of such Trial, (from which a man's own conscience, upon examination, may gather profitable admonition and comfort) such Remiss Determinations are specially profitable, as we have showed. XLI. Supposing the former determinations made: e●se not. But we must add withal to this Consideration, that to the main and general business of Religion., (God's worship, and the Souls good) such Remiss Determination of the Continuance and Frequency of Time for it, (if there were no other Determinations, none strict, and even conclusive, to make up the ordinarily sufficient, chief, solemn Time of Worship) it could not be profitable; because in no wise sufficient for persons so unwilling, and so unwise, and so liable to Interruptions from worldly businesses, and other men's importunities, as even the best men (and much more the ordinary sort of mankind) are all their life long: As will appear more fully in the next Chapter, in which we shall discourse at large of the necessity even of such a Conclusive Determination to Religion. But upon the supposal of such a Conclusive Determination for the chief solemn Time for Religion, other Determinations made but even remiss, may stand in good stead, and prove very profitable, oftentimes, even beyond ordinary expectation, as experience shows in those that are willing to take the advantages of them, as was intimated before. XLII. Particular determinations for particular ends, may be removed. 6. Furthermore, it is also to be observed, that as we said before in point of Learning, Determinations of Time for particular intendments toward Religion, although withal of some use and profit for the general business of Religion, may so grow out of date, upon those particular intendments being satisfied, and so the special and principal reason of those Determinations being ceased; that it may be convenient to remove and take them quite away; partly as burdens, not so suitable to the state of the New Testament; but specially, lest their Perpetuity should eclipse the glory of Christ, of whom they were shadows, (as well as other Ceremonies.) And accordingly so we find in the Epistles of S. Paul, Rom. 14. Gal. 4. Col. 2. a Repeal of all the Jewish Festivall-Dayes, New Moons, and others, (including also the Jewish Quando, or particular Day of the seven, which was for the Weekly Sabbath) Their main intention being for particular ends, and purposes typical; The Apostle saying of them all, Gal. 4. That they were weak and beggarly elements. And Col. 2. Shadows of good things to come, but the Body was CHRIST. And so Christ being come, and the Church come of age, out of her state of infancy, God thought it not fit to continue these any more, nor any thing in the stead of any of them, except only of the Seventh-day Sabbath; because it was a Circumstance, which did belong to the Substantial Determination of one Day in seven, (in the fourth Commandment, which was the Conclusive Determination for the chief solemn Time) Therefore in stead of it, He set up a new particular Day, the first of the seven, (as that was the last) called in the New Testament by the name of the first Day of the Week, and the Lordsday. This, we say, was done, because the Substantial Determination of one Day in seven, could not be observed, without some particular Day also determined for it. But the others God wholly took away, as being no way proportionable in Profit with that; and as being willing to leave His Christian Church now come to age, at some more liberty than before, to present Him with voluntary Determinations of Times of attendance publicly, (as all Churches have had some of their own, even those that have rejected the name of Holiday or Festivals, yet have they had (sometimes, even weekly) Days wherein they have had Public Prayers, or Preach, or both.) And also privately, each one hath more to show his free affection, when so many Days were not expressly determined by God, as there were before. Yet still He would not take away that Conclusive Determination of one Day in seven, for the most singular and substantial profit of it, which we have partly shown already, and shall do more in the following Chapters. As also we shall hereafter further discourse upon those places of St. Paul, which our Anti-Sabbatarians do so earnestly urge against the fourth Commandment for one Day in seven, to include that also, though there be not the least intimation of any such thing there, further than concerns the particular Day then observed, as we shall show. Mean time, in this place we held it necessary to touch the remarkable difference between the Determination of one Day in seven, (as the Conclusive Determination for the chief Time for Religion) and all the rest; and how conveniently, they being repealed, it may be perpetuated: as also, that It being perpetuated, their repeal brings not any prejudice to Religion, there being such reason for it; but a benefit rather: which cannot be conceived of that for one Day in seven, XLIII. A reservation for necessary interruptions, may be profitable. in any such sort. 7. And now in the last place, to shut up these Considerations of the profitableness of the Determinations of Times for Religion: That, (which we have divers times insinuated already) we now assert the profitableness of; Namely, Of a Reservation for necessary Interruptions, both ordinary, and extraordinary. This, we say, may well be conceived profitable, to be adjoined to all kinds and manners of Determinations for Religion: for that by this means, both they will be the less burdensome by much, though they be otherwise large for the proportion, and strict for the manner of Determination, and scarcely liable to a pretence of burden; as also the Determinations themselves in the residue of the Times, will be a great deal more certain to be observed, by this allowance of such really important necessities. The taking away of an excuse, saving sometimes the main of a Duty; which else, under the pretence of prejudicing a necessary present business, would have been wholly neglected, as an unreasonable command. Accordingly therefore, we find sufficient intimations in the Scripture, and particularly by our Saviour's pleading with the Pharisees on that occasion, That works of mercy to any of Mankind, and even to a Beast, as the lifting them out of a pit, or even leading them forth to water, are Reservations made by God himself, out of the strictest Determinations of Time for Religion, namely, out of the Sabbath. And the same Equity is generally held by the strictest Divines, to extend to all such businesses of Necessity, which could neither have been done the Day before, nor can be deferred to the next Day: As the quenching of a fire breaking out in a Hay-stack, though in a field, and remote from any dwelling house, and the like. Further particulars of which Reservations, to be gathered from the instances of our Saviour, and His discourses about them, and other general expressions, we shall have occasion again hereafter to examine: As also, that to us now under the Gospel there is some further allowance in this kind, then was to the Jews of old; We being more freed from all real burdens, than they were. Only it must still be remembered, that God's indulgence herein must be so far from making us think the Determinations to be of no force, (as our Adversaries most absurdly argue against the whole Doctrine and Law of the Sabbath, from those expressions of our Saviour about these Reservations, as we shall see) that we ought rather to esteem ourselves the more obliged to them: since God is so graciously pleased to condescend to us, as to prefer our natural and worldly necessities in such cases, before His own immediate services: But doubtless, if we think His services, and our Souls necessities, any matters of regard at all; we shall not see any just ground to think, that God ever meant by such Reservations for particular cases and occasions, to lay all Time level, and refer all to men's courtesies, whether they will give Him any back again, or how much, or how little; often, or seldom. And so we have done at length with this Discourse about the profitableness of Determinations of Times for Religion generally, XLIV. The Conclusion. together with some Intimations of Application more particular unto the Determination of one Day's Continuance in the frequent revolution of seven Days, according to the fourth Commandment: But the full application cannot be made, till we have added also the Considerations that concern the Necessity of this or that kind of Determination, and this or that Manner: and likewise scanned, whether the chief Determination for the necessary and ordinarily sufficient chief solemn Time can be profitably made by any other but God himself. To which two Points we shall speak, by His assistance, in the two following Chapters. And if in this already, or in any that follow, we shall seem to any too prolix and tedious, We must desire them to consider, that the Argument is not only of great importance, but also hath hitherto been handled very confusedly in this Point about the Nature of Time, (which yet is one of the main hinges upon which the whole Controversy depends) even by all the Adversaries, as well as the friends of our, or rather of God's cause, for His Solemn Time, and Day of Holy Rest. We have therefore been desirous to beat things out so, as that any attentive Reader may see clearly the way we go, and the strength of the Arguments on which we ground our Cause: that so far as is possible, and as God shall vouchsafe to bless, we may satisfy all Consciences, even of ordinary Readers: which we much misdoubt we should not have done, if we had strived to contract ourselves unto the quicker apprehensions of the more pregnant wits: while withal we assure the one and other sort, that we take no further delight in expatiating either in matter or words, than we judge it necessary to the clearing of doubts, which others, or our own minds have made about the whole, or any part of this undertaking. CHAP. IX. A Determine Solemn Time for God's Worship is Moral Natural: and that in the first Commandment: And what kind and manner of Determination of Time for Religion, may be proved necessary, by the Law, or Light of Nature, and general rules of Scripture. I. Determinate Time is, 1. Moral Natural. THE General nature of Time in Religion, as well as in civil actions, and the profitableness of the Determination of it for Religion, as well as for Learning, or any other civil business, hath been in the foregoing chapters at large considered and discoursed of. Now we are to proceed to a higher step concerning it: Namely the Necessity of its Determination for Religion, God's honour and the good of men's souls, of which though we have also spoken somewhat in general already: Yet are there further considerations to be set down about it; and particularly, [What kind of Determination, of any one of the respects of Time single, or of any two of them jointly, or of all three of them together, is necessary for Religion? As also, what manner of Determination, Remiss, Initial, or Conclusive?] according to what may be proved from General rules of the law and light of nature, appliable to all men in all ages, all the world over: and general rules also of Scripture, without allegation of the fourth Commandment, or any such determination expressed in Scripture. But only to consider, whether those general rules will not necessitate us to have recourse to the fourth Commandment for the determination conclusive of the Continuance and Frequency jointly, for all mankind now that come to the knowledge of it, as well as for the Jews of old; and to the first Day of the week, the Lordsday, for the season or order of beginning to count, and so for the particular day to be necessarily observed by all Christians to the world's end: As also to make us acknowledge that the same Continuance and Frequency of one Day in seven, was given to Adam and all his Posterity (according to Gen. 2.) together with the last Day of seven from the beginning of the Creation, for the season and order. And this is the task of this and the next Chapter, chiefly for the laying down the Positive grounds of our tenants generally, reserving the discussion of particular exceptions and objections, to the following parts, where we shall deal with the severals in their order distinctly. To begin then, II. 1 Explained. we propound two Positions in the forefront of this discourse about the necessity of Determinate Time for Religion, (according to the Title of this Chapter,) whereof the first is [Some Determinate solemn Time for God's Worship is Moral Natural.] This we must first Explain, and then we shall set upon the proof of it. For explication, we desire it may be observed. 1. 1. Meant only of the Continuance and Frequency. That We affirm it only in regard of the quantity or Proportion of time: but yet of that, in both the respects of it, the Quamdiu or Continuance, and the Quoties or Frequency: That some Determinate solemn Continuance is Moral Natural; and again, some Determinate solemn Frequency, is commanded, by the very Law of nature; namely, (according to our former description of the law of nature c. 1.) [That every reasonable man, notwithstanding the present corruption of his nature, may be forced to acknowledge it necessary to be given to God in duties of His immediate and solemn worship, in regard of the importance of those respects of time for Religion, God's Honour and the good of men's souls: And that accordingly, duties must attend those Determinations of Time to fill up the whole Continuance and answer the revolutions.] But we say no such thing of the Quando, season, III. Not of the season. or order of beginning, by itself considered, as not being of itself, any way material to Religion, as hath been discoursed before. Only when the other respects are discerned to be determined, there will also appear some kind of necessity, of some Determination of this also, at least to secure men's helping one another, and prevent their hindering one another, who live in a nearness together, as we shall see more hereafter. FOUR 2. Of those both single and jointly. 2. We affirm this Determination of the law of nature, not only of each of those respects single, (of some Continuance, and some Frequency,) but of both of them jointly (that some Determination of such a Continuance so often; V 3. Not remiss only, nor conclusive, nor exclusive, but only Initial. and of such a Frequency with such Continuance) is Moral Natural, and made by the very law of nature. 3. That by the Determinations, which we maintain (in this position) to be made by the law of nature of these respects of time: As on the one hand, we understand more than a remiss Determination, (to say, as many disputers do, only a convenient Time, or a sufficient Time,) leaving both the terms and limits, for length or shortness of Continuance, and for Frequency, or seldomenesse of Revolution wholly undesigned: So on the other hand, we mean not a conclusive Determination, assigning exactly the limits on both sides, (much less an exclusive determination, of which sort we have before noted, that we find none absolutely given out by God any where in reference to the general business of Religion,) But only such Determination, as we have before termed Initial, wherein the Initial term of either of those respects of Time, of the Continuance and of the Frequency, is determined; that is, the Continuance to be so long together at least, and no less while; as also the revolution, so often at least and no seldomer: So requiring somewhat both for Continuance and Frequency strictly, and implying withal somewhat more in each respect: but leaving that somewhat to some other Determination of God or man. More plainly, we mean, that the Law of nature determines the Continuance in regard of the shortest proportion, [That so much together at lest cannot but be necessary to be presented to God at one time or other of every manslife:] and so again, [That so often at least in a revolution to wait upon God solemnly in duties of Religion and Divine Worship, cannot but be necessary to every man during his life upon earth.] VI 2 Proved of the Continuance single. And now we come to prove our Position: 1. For the Quamdiu or Continuance single [If there may be sin against the law of nature in giving God too little time at once, in waiting upon him in the duties of solemn worship, than some Determined solemn Time is Moral Natural in regard of the proportion of continuance in his worship; But there may be sin even against the law of nature in giving God too little Time at once. Ergo.] The consequence of this argument is undeniably confirmed, by those sentences of the Apostle; that whosoever sins, transgresses the law, for sin is the transgression of the law; and where no law is, there is no transgression. So that if to give God never above half a minute at once, in waiting upon him in any solemn worship, be a transgression and sin, even against the law of nature, than the law of nature Determines a solemn Time, at least somewhat above that Propotion of Continuance; and so a whole minute, or three quarters of a minute (or the like) is a Determinate solemn Time by the law of nature, and moral natural: or any other proportion of continuance that can be named, or imagined smaller than this, will serve to illustrate and confirm this consequence. The Antecedent is no less certain, and clear, what ever conscience of the most corrupted man be called to judge, (if he wholly deny not a God, and a worship due to him) for all men cannot but confess, that it were sin never throughout a man's whole life to give God above half a minute at once, or a quarter of a minute, or any less proportion of continuance, if less can be mentioned or observed: (As for instance, that of the Publican, Luke 18. when he smote his breast, and cried, Lord be merciful to me a sinner, this was a solemn Worship, and continued a little longer than an instant, and so was measurable for Continuance, but never to give God a larger Continuance, cannot but be acknowledged a sin.) Ergo, our conclusion is firm, that some Determinate solemn Time above that proportion of Continuance, is Morall-Naturall, and determined even by the law of nature. The like argument will serve (mutatis mutandis) for some Determinate solemn Time in regard of the Quotie, VII. Of the frequency single. or Frequency single. [If there may be sin against the law of nature in waiting upon God too seldom, than some Determinate solemn Time is Moral Natural in regard of the Frequency of revolution; But there may be sin against the law of nature in waiting upon God too seldom, Ergo.] The consequence is proved as before. That where no law is, there is no transgression, no sin, etc. So that if it be transgression and sin even against nature's law, never through a man's life to wait upon God in his worship above once; then the law of nature Determines a solemn Frequency above the proportion of once; and so twice at least in a man's life is a Determinate Time by the law of nature, and so Moral Natural. The Antecedent is also undeniable by any one that hath not altogether forsworn all conscience, and renounced all Religion in regard of God. For whether by waiting upon God, we understand presenting unto him, Eiaculatory Worship, which may perhaps be dispatched in an instant, or imperceptible Time, or solemn Worship, which cannot but take up some more remarkable Continuance: In either sense, and in both; none can choose but acknowledge, that it were sin never throughout a man's whole life to wait upon God but once, even though that once should be continued as long as ever any man in the world did wait upon God, even forty days and forty nights, (as Moses did miraculously upon Mount Horeb, once and a second time.) Therefore this Conclusion is also infallible, That some determinate solemn Time above once, for Frequency, is Morall-Naturall. VIII. Of both jointly. Again, the same Argument will also serve to prove a joint Determination of somewhat, both for Continuance and Frequency together, even by the Law of Nature: thus: [If there may be sin against the Law of Nature, in waiting upon God too little while at once, though one do wait upon Him often: and, in waiting upon Him too seldom; though one do wait upon Him a good while together for once; then a determinate solemn Time is Morall-Naturall, both for some Continuance, and some Frequency together. But there may be sin against the Law of Nature, in waiting upon God too little while at once, though one do wait upon Him often: and in waiting upon Him too seldom, though one do wait upon Him a good while together for once. Ergo.] The Consequence stands good upon the former proofs; so also doth the Antecedent: for what heart can deny, but the Continuance of half a minute were too little at once constantly for God's worship, though a man did reiterate it for Frequency, every Day, and even divers times every Day. And again, who can but acknowledge, that to worship God solemnly but once or twice in a man's life, were too seldom, how long soever he continued at it, when he did worship Him. The Conclusion than is beyond gainsaying, That a Determinate Solemn Time is Morall-Naturall, both for Continuance, above a quarter of a Minute; and for Frequency, above once or twice in a man's life time. IX. An Objection prevented two ways. If any now wonder, why we have troubled ourselves, or our Readers, with so many words, about so plain a matter as this seems to be, which also all that handle these Disputes, seem to grant abundantly; We desire such to receive satisfaction from a twofold Answer, which we offer in this behalf. X. Answ. 1. First, that throughout this whole Discourse, we choose rather to prove what we assert, than to be beholding to our Adversaries for granting it; as well to satisfy the consciences of all Readers, as for that we know not whether our Adversaries in this question of the Sabbath will be always so liberal, as to grant all that now in their books they sometimes do. Which we are in more suspicion of, because we find (as we shall put them in mind often in the ensuing Discourse) that they do ever now and then retract their grants of divers things, which if they would steadily have held to, they would have been forced to have come unto us in the main; as we hope to give them to understand ere we h●ve done. 2. But withal we cannot choose but profess, XI. Answ. 2. that in particular we have not as yet been able to observe in their writings any such constant and clear confession of these things we have now taken pains to prove, as we conceive necessary to be expressly set down for a right foundation of understanding of these disputes. For though all of them usually affirm in sense (if not in express terms) That one Day in seven (for frequency) is very agreeable to the Law of Nature: and that less than one in seven it may not be: and that Christians must not give God less than the Jews did: and such like speeches, which we shall note hereafter in their due place: And some of them offer also now and then to say, That a Day (which when we speak of, we mean for Continuance a Day together) is of the Law of Nature, which is more than we yet have said. Yet soon after, like men that have trod upon a Quagmire (or a Serpent) they step back again; and as having granted more than they can well afford us, or then indeed will well stand with their cause; they fall off again to mere generals and uncertainties, under the notions of a sufficient and convenient Time, and such like doubtful phrases; which without some particularising, come in effect to nothing more than a more than a mere indeterminate Time, (as we have noted in the former Chapter) and never so much as grant explicitly and clearly any distinct Determination at all by the Law of Nature; either for the Continuance, so much as a Minute at once; or for the Frequency, once in a Year: which hath made us apprehend it necessary to set down somewhat at least of our own, by way of groundwork, and lay our foundation as low as may be, and so try what we can further build upon it, in due season. While withal we doubt not but we may rise divers steps higher (both for the Continuance of Time, for Worship, and for the Frequency) than those we have discoursed of hitherto: As namely, That all men will confess, that 1. for the Continuance single, the Law of Nature doth determine every man to somewhat more than a quarter of an hour, then half an hour, even to a whole hour at least, as to a necessary proportion to be given to God, at one time or other, during a man's life; and that it were sin even against the Law of Nature, if a man should never in all his life give God a whole hour at once. And 2. for the Frequency single, that the Law of Nature doth determine every man to somewhat more than twice in his life, even more than twice in seven years, more than twice in every year of his life, every quarter of a year, every month, even once at least every day, as a necessary proportion to be given to God in a Revolution: And that it were sin even against the Law of Nature, to worship God seldomer than so, in some manner. Also, 3. Putting both these Respects together, and the Law of Nature doth still determine every man to at least an hour together; We say not every Day, but at least every Month, as a necessary proportion to be given to God: and that less at once every month, or seldomer so much as an hour, were sin even against the Law of Nature. And this we are persuaded even very corrupted Nature will not find in their hearts to deny, nor can they, upon the former Principles of Gods being the Lord of all our Time and our Happiness. And further also then so we might perhaps go; but we are not willing to particularise too far by way of guess, because nothing certain can be concluded on uncertainties. Therefore we will rather make trial, whether the Law or Light of Nature will help us any further in any certain Determination of any more distinctly, than we formerly asserted, in the explication of this first Position. XII. 2. It is Moral by the first Commandment. But we think good first to interpose our second Position (noted in the Title of the Chapter) [That the Determinate Solemn Time forenoted, and argued to be Morall-Naturall, is within the compass of the first Commandment.] To prove which, we propound this ensuing Argument. XIII. Argum. [That which requires, that we give not God too little Time at once, or too seldom Time in a revolution, comprehends under it such a Determinate Solemn Time, as hath been mentioned, both for Continuance and Frequency: But the first Commandment requires, that we give not God too little Time at once, or too seldom Time in a revolution: Ergo.] The Major is clear from the former grounds, in that the Sin and the Duty must needs come both under the same Commandment. The Minor may be two ways confirmed. 1. 1 Confirmation. [That Commandment which requires an acknowledgement that the Lord is our God, and the sovereign Lord of us, and all our Time; requires that we give Him not too little Time at once, or too seldom Time in a revolution: But the first Commandment requires that acknowledgement, that the Lord is our God, and sovereign Lord of us, and all our Time: Ergo.] The Major is certain; because the sin of giving God too little Time at once, and too seldom Time in a revolution, is contrary to the forementioned acknowledgement. The Time being therefore too little, and too seldom, for Him and His worship, because He is the supreme Lord of us and all our Time; and, as we said before, the Sin and the Duty must needs be both under one Commandment. The Minor cannot be denied; in that the affirmative part of the first Commandment being expressly, to have the Lord for our God, This necessarily includes the acknowledgement of Him to be our absolute Sovereign, and Lord of all our Time, and whatsoever else we can call ours: or else some other must be acknowledged Lord of it, either ourselves, or some other creatures: and to affirm that, were to make such creatures our God. Therefore the owning the Lord to be our God, requires and comprehends such an acknowledgement, and such duty, and forbids such sin. 2. The second confirmation of the Minor of the first Syllogism, XIV. 2 Confirmation. may be thus conceived: [That Commandment which requires the acknowledgement, that God is our Happiness; requires, that we give Him not too little Time at once, or too seldom in a revolution for attendance upon Him, and converse with Him: But, the first Commandment requireth that acknowledgement, that God is our Happiness: Ergo.] The Major is manifest from the former grounds again; because the sin of giving God too little Time, or too seldom Time, is contrary to that acknowledgement, of Him being our Happiness. For what ever a man counts his Happiness, he doth (and can do no otherwise then) devote much and often Time to it, to attend and enjoy it, being carried to his Happiness with all his strength. And Love, which is the immediate offspring of such accounting any thing our Happiness, both commands a man's Time, and all else of him, in thankfulness, and kindness, and wisdom, for the service of, and converse with, that object loved. Neither can love afford to offend in giving too little, or too seldom Time; But it is a sin against love, and a manifestation of the want of love, (so far forth) to scanty or abridge Time, either for Continuance, or Frequency. The Minor is no less easily proved; Because that is plainly our God, which to serve and enjoy, is our happiness. As for that reason mainly, Money is called the covetous man's god; Honour, the ambitious man's god; Pleasure, the voluptuous Epicures; and he whose happiness it is to pamper his belly, is he that makes his belly his god. In like sort we have not the Lord to be our God, (which the first Commandment requires) unless He be our happiness; or which comes to all one, unless to serve and enjoy Him, be our happiness. As than Profaneness, Covetousness, and worldly-mindedness, are sins against the first Commandment undeniably; and they so take up the Time for our own carnal self, and the creatures, as that they are the causes, and the only causes, why any gives God too little, or too seldom Time: so they prove, that the sin of giving God too little, or too seldom Time, comes under the compass of the said first Commandment; and consequently, that that first Commandment requires such a determinate solemn Time as we have spoken of, XV. A Consequence thereof. for Continuance and Frequency both. And this which we have now asserted, considered by itself, we conceive that every one (even our very Adversaries) will, and must grant us. But when we shall come to make our Inference from it, Namely, that not only a Remissely determinate Time for Religion, but even an Initial determination both of some solemn Continuance of Time, and some solemn Frequency of Revolution, being commanded in the first Commandment, (both singly and jointly) it will thence follow, that nothing is left for the fourth Commandment, but only the precise and conclusive determination of a whole Day's continuance, in the revolution of seven Days, as the chief Time for Religion: and so if the Commandment be not in force now for one Day in seven, it is altogether void, and there are not now ten Commandments, but only nine.] When, we say, we shall thus urge them from hence, (as we suppose we may most justly and strongly) they will interpose some Exceptions against this Position of ours concerning the first Commandment including such Determinations of Time, as we have named; of which kind we have already met with some from some Discourses: We shall therefore in the next Part, where this application is properly to be made, propound such Exceptions, as we can conceive may be made against it; and accordingly, as we hope, sufficiently satisfy them: And then so many as dare not directly take away the fourth Commandment wholly, will be forced to yield it in force (as we contend) for one Day in seven, even from this very Argument, besides all others. Mr. Broad, indeed, hath ventured to be so audacious, as to reject this Commandment wholly; and one or two more of our Disputers do now and then speak very broadly towards it, as shall be noted in due place. But we suppose, the most even of those that as yet consent not with us for the perpetuity of one Day in seven, are not yet grown to that confidence, but that they will rather yield to our assertion of that, than altogether to throw away the Commandment. For their sakes it is, and for other conscientious Christians, who count themselves bound to cleave to the whole Decalogue, (for the Reasons before alleged in the 2. 3. 4. and 5. Chapters) that we take pains to maintain, that All Time, which is now by our Adversaries avouched to be Morall-Naturall, belongs to the first Commandment; and may be justified without any fourth Commandment at all: And that therefore, it needs not, nor should not be now added, to a purpose, which is already satisfied, and is not at all expressed in the words. So that if we will have and hold a fourth Commandment still, we must hold to the words of it, and so to one Day in seven, which is that we dispute for. In the mean time we proceed to consider, XVI. How far Nature will carry us further, in determination of Solemn Time. whether the law of nature will carry us any further in this matter of Determinate and Solemn Time for Religion? and how far? As also whether the light of nature will not afford us some further direction about it, where to seek a further direction after that the law of nature hath nothing more to say distinctly of it? Only first, Let us say a word concerning the Term of the light of nature, The Light of Nature, and Law of Nature distinguished. as different from the law of nature, and because we add it to the former. Of which we say, [That by the light of nature we mean, The understanding that men have by natural principles in their minds, (even notwithstanding the present corruption of nature) whereby their Consciences, either of themselves, or awakened by others discourses, come to prescribe the Laws of Nature to them: making them see by way of conclusion from those principles a necessity of duty, to or against such and such things, even though they have not heard of the Scripture, or give no credit to their authority.] So that the Principles of reason concerning God or man, are the light of nature, and the Practical conclusions drawn from thence are the Laws of Nature. XVII. A caution to be observed in Arguments from the Law of Nature. 2. Withal, Forasmuch as we have divers Times asserted (and that undeniably) [That God is the Sovereign Lord of us and all our Time;] and that it is also certain, [That he hath no need of us at all, nor of any of our Time] Therefore whatsoever we shall argue as necessary by the Law of Nature to be employed in Religion and the Solemn Worship of God, we do not intent it in that sort, as though God could not appoint it otherwise, if he so pleased; and so if any certain word of his can be showed, that he will not have now, this or that Proportion of Time: It is not our purpose to argue for it, against that express word of his, no not under the pretence of the Law of Nature, or aught else that can possibly be alleged. But our intent is on the contrary, so to discourse of the Law (and light) of Nature's determining of Time, or directing about it, as may urge the Consciences of Men, where the Scripture is silent, or is not heard in the case; and so from the rules even of Nature to drive them to have recourse to the express words of Scripture, in those cases, where Nature is either at a loss, or may seem even to require more, then in our present state on earth, man is able to give. So that we shall take these things for undoubted truths. 1. That whatsoever Proportions of Time the Law (and Light) of Nature call for to be employed in Religion, are altogether necessary, so fare forth as they are possible, to men that have also necessary worldly businesses, unless the Scripture express God's will, by way of Precept, or at least, of indulgence to be otherwise. 2d. That if God do in the Scripture expressly give us (now under the Gospel) an indulgence, of any proportions of Times for worldly businesses, that so fare as himself recalls it not, by other Rules of his in Scripture, The Law of Nature is not to be urged as necessitating, to a religious employing of those Times within the compass of that indulgence, further than those other Rules of Scripture do again enforce. 3. That men have no pretence to urge an indulgence granted in the old Testament (and particularly, that of six days labouring about worldly business, ordinarily and for the most part, which is the express indulgence of the fourth Commandment,) and withal to reject the Commandemet itself for Religious Time, to which this indulgence is but an appendix, or adjunct. For that the indulgence cannot in reason be longer lived than the Commandment to which it belongs. If therefore that be annihilated and repealed, so is the indulgence also, that appertained to it. And then if a new one can not be found, we must either have recourse to the fourth Commandment again, as we do, and would persuade them also to do, or else we must trust only to the Law (and light) of Nature: Which what command, or indulgence of itself, it will, or can give us, we now come to consider. And that in some distinct questions. 1. XVIII. Four general questions propounded. Whether to the initial term of Continuance and Frequency (that is the shortest and seldomest proportion) to be determined for Religion, which we have already proved done by the Law of Nature, we may not find some further certain determination by the Law of Nature of the Conclusive term of Continuance single, and so a conclusive determination of the longest Continuance considered single without any Frequency of Revolution. 2. Whether also the same may be found of the Conclusive term of Frequency, and so a Conclusive determination made of the greatest Frequency single, without adding any Continuance to it? And if not, yet how fare the Law (and light) of Nature will lead us towards it? 3. Whether then the Law of Nature can possibly make a Conclusive determination of both those respects of Continuance and Frequency jointly, and so to make up the chief solemn Time of Worship? And if not, yet whether the light of Nature will not tell us, that such a determination must necessarily be made for Religion? And accordingly, what conditions this determination must have: which will direct them whether any General Rules of Scripture added to the light of Nature can suffice to the making of this determination, by any man or number of men? Or that we must needs seek for an express determination of it in Scripture, which then can be no other, but that of the fourth Commandment for one Day in Seven. 4. And finally, whether, after this settled, the Law (and light) of Nature, will afford us any help toward the determination also of the Quando, season, or order of beginning; the particular Day of seven, and the beginning of the Day at evening or morning: or send us for this also to the Scripture. And so we shall at last meet a most complete determination of all the three respects of Time together for Religion, and so the most solemn Time that can be: Of all which in their order, and with all convenient brevity. 1. Here for the first of these, the longest Continuance singly considered; We suppose, XIX. 1. Nature determines for the longest Continuance, a Day. if we can light upon a Continuance with these three Qualifications, namely, Which 1. is limited in Nature, (as Nature is distinguished from Art, and so may be taken notice of by all men that have Natural Reason, though they have no Art, or skill in Astronomical Distinctions of Time.) 2. Which is possible to be employed, all of it, in the Worship of God, according to Nature, (as Nature is distinguished from Corruption, and imports Physical natural abilities, and natural spirits, that may hold out to the end of the Continuance in businesses of importance.) 3. And which is the Longest Continuance, generally possible, according to Nature, for all men so to employ: We have then found that we seek for; And that the Law of Nature doth certainly (and conclusively) determine such a Continuance to be employed in Solemn Worship, one Time or other in a man's life. And that, in a word, we conceive to be a Day: For as for a Year, or Month, which are also Natural limitations of Time; they are too long for any Natural abilities to hold out unto, (even taking in the naturally necessary reservations of meat and sleep) to employ them wholly in the solemn Worship of God. It must then either be a Day, or nothing. XX A Day described. Now by a Day, which, we say, is a Continuance limited in Nature, and may by Natural Reason, without Art, be taken notice of; We understand not that Time of Light, which is distinguished from the Darkness of Night, and is longer, and shorter, in several Countries and Climates, at the same time of the year, and in several times of the year in the same Country and Climate: But such a Continuance of Time, whether of Light or Darkness, may be, and is, in all Countries, and all seasons of the year, termed a Natural Day. Now this Natural Day, we think, we may express or describe two ways fitly. 1. Physically, 24 hours. 1. By a mere Physical or Astronomical Consideration of the revolution of the Heavens, and namely of the primum mobile, in the space of 24 hours, as we count it. And this space of 24 hours, is generally by all (or most) termed a natural day; and the revolution of it, though not precisely to a minute, is generally possible to all men to observe, in what Climate soever they live, and how long soever the Sun is present with them, or absent from them, even though they understand not so much as the Terms of Astronomy: As may easily be made good, even by experience of Shepherds, who can usually, by seeing the Sun, any Time of the Day, tell what Hour it is (near-hand) without any Dial, 2. Practically our waking Time. or mark on the ground, only by looking up to it. 2. Or by a Consideration partly ethical and Practical, that is, [That Time within the space of 24 Hours, wherein men are awake] which is properly and only the Time of business any Day: And which waking Time is the only Continuance possible, according to Nature, to be employed in the Worship of God, (or in any other business, as we said.) For it is not possible, we know, to employ ourselves in any business, or service of God, not being awake. Now this waking Time, specially so much as is between that waking in the morning, which is for all day as we say (when a man presently rises, or at least sets his mind a work strait upon some business, or pleasure,) and that sleeping Time, when a man lays himself down to sleep for that night; is in common speech also termed a Day. And men's businesses, their daily work and labour, particularly of household servants, apprentices and others, are usually during that whole Continuance. And now of both these descriptions of a Natural Day, we say, XXI. These are both one in our sense. That for the matter we have now in hand, they are in true construction but one and the same. Specially if we remember, that which we have heretofore laid down about the determination of Time generally in any respect: That it admits of some reservation or dispensation, according to the pleasure of the determiner, sufficiently made known. For so the Law of Nature, that is, God in Nature, determining as we suppose, a Day's Continuance for solemn Worship, doth yet admit of a reservation out of the 24 hours' Continuance constantly, not only for the necessary or comfortable eating Times, (unless God do specially command a Fast upon that Day:) But also specially for the necessary sleeping Time, within the compass of 24 hours. And so all the remainder of that Time of 24 hours, namely the waking Time, before mentioned, is properly, and only, the Day for business, and so the Day which is determined, as we say, by the Law of Nature for God's Worship: solemn Worship, as much as may be; and Ejaculatory, in meal-Times, by speaking and thinking of God upon every turn; and not settling the thoughts or words upon any worldly object or business unnecessarily; that so God may have all that can possibly be tendered Him, on His solemn Day. XXII. An objection answered two ways. If now any shall object, that if we make the waking time of men, within 24 hours, to be such a Day, as the Law of Nature determines for God's worship: Then, whether it determine only one such Day in a man's life, or more, (of which we yet dispute not, but shall do anon) It determines not equally to several men, but to some a longer Continuance, to some a shorter: because all do not, nor cannot wake a like Continuance; but some more, some less, according to the natural abilities and tempers of their bodily spirits; some being not satisfied, without they have more sleep than others stand in need of: And that it seems an inconvenience, to say, That the Law of Nature doth not bind all men equally. XXIII. Answ. 1. To this we answer briefly, 1. That it is no inconvenience to say, That the Law of Nature, in one sense, equally binds all men; and in another sense, it doth not bind all men equally: [aeque, non aequaliter, as we spoke before in another matter:] and that about the selfsame thing. Namely, that it may bind all men to the same proportion, Geometrical, as the schools speak; but not to the same proportion Arithmetical. As for example, the Law of Nature, binds all rich men equally, in one sense, to relieve the poor: But in another sense, it binds them not all equally. It equally binds them all, in a Geometrical proportion, that is, according as they are able to spare, and others need: But it binds them not all equally, in (or to) an Arithmetical proportion, that is, just so many pounds, shillings, or pence; because all have not alike to spare. So in this case, the Law of Nature equally binds all men to give God a Day, that is, such as Day as they are able, such a Day as their Natural spirits can hold out unto; as they are able to continue waking, in the service of God: But it doth not bind all then equally to the same proportions of minutes, because all are not able to wake equally, one as long as an other. But so fare as men are able, it binds all equally, all being bound to serve God in the Day with all their strength, the strength of all their Natural abilities. And so much, we shall presently see, The Law of Nature, commands every one of mankind; (and more than so much, it doth not command;) whether the Continuance be longer or shorter, compared with others. XXIV. Answ. 2. 2. But with all we say, If any one of mankind, through neglect of the service of God or misse-devotion to it, do willingly sleep more, and wake less Time than he need to do: (whether, again, the Continuance, compared with other men, be longer or shorter,) he is and will be found a transgressor against this Law of Nature: For this is but corruption in him, though perhaps he may pretend Natural infirmity. But of that, and all other such like pretences, this Rule, in a word, may be a certain and sufficient judge, That what Continuance soever a man is able to keep himself waking in a Day, about any worldly business, or matter of pleasure (gaming or the like,) he is able to keep himself, according to Nature, the same Continuance of Time in the service of God, in one or other exercise of Religion, which Naturally weary not the spirits, more than worldly matters; but rather less than many worldly matters; and the varieties may refresh and do greatly, the mind, so fare as carnality and corruption oversway not. And therefore, in the first stating of this position concerning a Day to be determined by the Law of Nature, we distinguished, Natural abilities, from corruption. For we take it for a most undeniable Truth, That corruption doth not hinder the Law of Nature from commanding to the utmost of Natural abilities, (as long at least as it exceeds not them,) For the loving and so serving, God withal our strength (as was touched before) is infallibly of the Law of Nature; and yet no man's corruption now suffers him to yield God so much love and service. This also made be made good in manifold particular instances, That the Law of Nature doth command us to do things, which now according to Our corruption it is impossible for any man to do. As to pray, or read, or hear the Word, (when ever he doth any of these Duties,) with a steady fixed heart and mind, without any distractions or worldly thoughts at all, that while (for that they are, so fare forth, a taking of God's holy name in vain,) Yet this no man is able now to do, as all men's consciences will confess, even though they employ but a very short Continuance in it. And now we come to prove, XXV. An argument to prove that nature determines a day's continuance. that a Day's Continuance for Religion is determined by the Law of Nature, from grounds and principles in Nature which we have formerly made use of. [If it be sin against the Law of Nature, never in a man's life to give God a whole Day at once; then the Law of Nature determines to every man, a whole Day's Continuance, once at least in his life, But it is sin against the Law of Nature never to God a whole Day at once. Ergo.] The consequence is undeniable. The Antecedent is thus further made good. [That which is contrary to the acknowledgement of Gods being the Lord of us and all our Time, and Gods being our happiness, is a sin against the Law of Nature. But never in a man's life to give God, a whole Day at once, is contrary to those acknowledgements. Ergo.] The Major is most plain and certain, The Minor also may be infallibly proved. Because those acknowledgements call for as much Continuance at once, as Nature can possibly determine and possibly give at once, where all that a man hath is due, that debt cannot be satisfied, unless all be tendered to Him. So unless all the Continuance of a Day be tendered to God, he hath not all that is due to Him as Lord of all our Time. Also where a man acknowledges his whole happiness to lie, that cannot but carry him, with the whole of his strength, to the utmost Continuance Nature hath to give: For all that a man doth is toward his happiness; and nothing can draw his mind from it, while his acknowledgement of it fails not. Now we have already showed, that Nature can and doth determine such a Day to every man for business (of what kind soever,) and that it can give it wholly to God, employ it wholly in the service of God (taking in specially, the Reservations of any necessary refresh, which Nature, and not corruption calling for God allows, and any extraordinary other Necessary interruption, as we have formerly said.) Therefore, never throughout a man's life to give God that which Nature, is so able to give Him, is against those acknowledgements of God's Sovereignty and His being our Happiness, and so a sin against the Law of Nature. XXVI. An objection answered. If here it be objected, That the same Argument will as well prove the whole Continuance of every Day of our life, as of one Day: which yet it doth not do, nor cannot; because our Natural necessities, allowed by God, and even commanded by the Law of Nature, (as it concerns the second Table duties) admits it not. And therefore the Argument is either false, or impertinent, or both. We answer, that the Objection furnishes us with sufficient justification of the Arguments both truth, and pertinency. For we grant, according to the Objection, that God, in the Law of Nature, commands to attend necessary Worldly businesses, as well (we say not, as much, that is, as absolutely necessarily) as His services, and the pursuing immediately of the Souls happiness, in and by them Therefore in sensu composito, it is not true, that the Argument proves the whole of every Day's continuance to be determined by the Law of Nature, for Religion, and Gods immediate worship. Although, in sensu diviso, it proves of every particular Day, (that is, this or that Quando) as well as of one. But we propound it not of any particular Day, in respect of the Quando or Season, this or that Day; but only of one single Continuance of a Day. And so it is both true, and pertinent. It is true: For though natural necessities of Worldly businesses will not admit the whole Continuance of every Day, one after another, (that is, the Quoties or Revolution joined to the Continuance, which we meddle not with in the Argument) Yet they will certainly admit one Day in a man's life: we mean, ordinary businesses will, (and for extraordinary necessities, we grant, as before, Reservation for them, if they should fall out, when a man were upon that one Days devotions.) Therefore still Nature can give such a Day; and therefore again we say, It is true, that the Law of Nature doth determine it. And as for the pertinency of this Discourse, we shall show it by and by. A second Objection may be made; Namely, XXVII. Another objection answered. That what is necessary by the Law of Nature, is always, and certainly so: But so is not this: because, for any thing the light of Nature can see, or say, God may have declared, that He will not have a whole Day, at any time, at once: and then the Argument will overthrow itself; He being the Sovereign Lord of in and all our Time. But to this we answer two things. 1. That we have in part already prevented this Objection; because, before we propounded this Question, of our judging of the Law of Nature's determining a Continuance of Time conclusively for Religion, we propounded it under the favour of God's allowance of it, even because all Time is His, and He hath no need of any service of ours. Therefore the Argument is intended but so far forth, as God hath not refused a whole Day's continuance at once to be tendered to Him in Solemn Worship. 2. We add, that unless we had such an express refusal in Scripture, we cannot conceive how the Light of Nature can suppose any such thing, as, that God should not allow His creatures to attend upon Him so long together at once, as their natural abilities are able to do, and their ordinary worldly necessities (with the allowed reservations) do certainly admit: That it can stand, we say, with His Honour, to refuse and forbid a whole Day. The rather, because none of our Adversaries, notwithstanding their displeasure is mainly against the Continuance of a whole Day, B. of E. p. 255. C. D. p 5●. G. Irons. p. 268. did ever express any imagination, that it should not be lawful to observe a whole Day: Only they will not admit it necessary. But, though we contend not for a necessity from the Law of Nature, for a whole Day every seven Days; yet if it be certainly lawful, to have one whole Day in a man's life, (as they more than grant, while they yield it ordinarily lawful every Week) We suppose, the Argument foregoing will prove so much necessary, even by the Law of Nature, as we have said. XXVIII. A third objection answered. One Objection yet remains, That two half Days may do as well as one whole Day, as being the same proportion in the whole. We answer divers things: 1. We suppose we have already in the former Chapter proved, That the longest Continuance is more profitable to Religion, as also more convenient for leaving freedom for worldly businesses at other times, then to divide the proportion of so many hours between divers Days. 2. For any man unncecessarily to break off the continuance of his attendance upon God's solemn Worship, is undeniably to discover want of Devotion to the Service of his Lord, and want of affection to God, his happiness. If a Necessity take him off, for a little while, or for longer, the Reservation (which we have oft named) acquits him of sin; but it may, and should be a grief to him: Else Christ would not have bidden His Disciples, [Pray that your flight be not on the Sabbath, Mat. 24.20.] Implying, it ought to grieve them, though it were lawful: (of which place we shall speak fully in due time.) But therefore we say again, To break off unnecessarily, when a man hath free liberty to attend on God, is a sin. 3. Besides that, He knows not whether he may not be hindered to morrow, or when he would make up his other half Day, and so lose it altogether; or be so long put off from Day to Day, till a great deal of his Affections gotten or quickened in the former half Day, be quenched again and lost. A careful Tenant, when his Rent is due, and he hath it all ready, will not bring half, and leave the rest to another time, lest he be rob in the mean while, or be forced to spend it, and so want it when he should pay it. If a man be bound to give God the proportion of a whole Day, as this Objection grants; and that by unnecessary delaying, he should die, having tendered but one half Day, when he might have given the whole, he dies in a sin. Therefore for certainty, two half Days are not so good as a whole Day. 4. If after that one whole Day, a man can certainly have freedom for another half Day, (we add, or even for another whole Day) the Argument will again hold for that half Day also, or that second whole Day, and so will add such a Frequency to the Continuance. But this were lost, we mean the benefit of the second half Day, if upon an unnecessary breaking off at the former half Day's end, (or not beginning till half were gone) this second must go to make up the former proportion of a whole Day: whereas here had been half a Day clearly gained to Religion, if the former Day had been wholly observed. Therefore we conclude, that notwithstanding all these Objections, [A whole Day's continuance, at lest once in every man's life, is determined to him for Religious attendance upon God, in that sort that hath been discoursed.] Other Arguments there are, which will help to evince the same, as we suppose. But we shall have occasion to propound them hereafter in place convenient. And we conceive, we have sufficiently proved it here by this one. And now if any ask, To what purpose is all this pains, XXIX. A scruple removed. seeing that this hath not come hitherto into an express Controversy; but rather by some of our Disputers words seems to be granted, (as we have noted.) We answer, That as the inquiry is pertinent to such as look narrowly into the nature of Religious Time, as we profess to do: So we conceive it may be very useful to our main Controversy, which (as we divers times noted) is principally about the Continuance, whether it be to be a whole Day at once, or less: and for the sake of this, all the other Disputes are brought upon the stage. Now we suppose, that this being evinced, and upon those grounds that have been produced; It will hence follow, when we come to join the Frequency to the Continuance, in a Conclusive Determination to be looked after, of both these Respects of Time jointly, to make up the chief Solemn Time for Religion; that whatever the Revolution be for number, yet in all probability (to say no more yet) it must be of a whole Day's Continuance, unless it can be found, that God hath now altogether rejected a whole Day; or that Worldly Necessities (even with the benefit of Reservation on the Day, for some) will not now admit so long a Continuance for Religion, though they did of old. For if God have not refused it, nor can worldly necessities exclude it, we see not but the Law of Nature will be calling for a Revolution and Frequency of a whole Day; though we say not, that it can pitch upon the Frequency of a Seventh Day's revolution. Of which more anon. XXX. Another scruple satisfied. If any, after all, shall say, That we have forgotten to put into this Argument, one thing, before mentioned in the way to it, namely, That the Coninuance which the Law of Nature determines conclusively, is the longest Continuance that natural abilities can hold out unto at once: which we have not yet affirmed of a Day. We answer in a word, 1. That we conceive it needless to take much pains to prove, that the a Day of 24 hours is the longest Continuance at once, that the natural abilities of all mankind generally is able to bestow upon the worship of God, or any other business. For if sleep be so necessary, as it is ordinarily to all men, within that time, (which is a most formal interruption or breaking of the Continuance of any business) as that not one of a hundred perhaps doth or can watch, at any time, a whole 24 hours together: Then much less can it be imagined, that all men should be able to hold out to a longer Continuance, without such naturally necessary interruption. 2. Also that we may justly say, that after such a formal interruption, (as sleep, upon the necessity of Nature is) and a new Day in Nature beginning: The next Time, suppose any were further determined upon a man's waking, were rather belonging to the Quoties or Frequency, as being a Revolution of a New Day, (as we said) then simply to the Continuance, so notoriously interrupted and ended, from a necessity of Nature's making. Though also, if there were an express and distinct determination further upon that second Day, of any Continuance of Time; then that determination were not neither a single determination of the Quoties or Frequency, but of it, and the Quamdiu or Continuance jointly: As in the Fast of Ester, three Days one after another. XXXI. How far Nature determines the Frequency. And so we proceed to our second Question, about the Law of Nature's Determination of Time, namely about the Frequency; How far the Law of Nature will lead us toward a Conclusive Determination thereof, that is, of the greatest Frequency, even single, without any Continuance added to it: and whether it can as well make a Conclusive Determination of the Frequency, as we have showed that it doth of the Continuance. For resolution hereof, although it may seem fair to affirm, That (if we shall speak according to the Natural divisions of Time, and so the Natural revolutions, distinctly observable by Natural Rules, even without art, among all men all the world over:) the Law of Nature doth determine, even conclusively, the Frequency of every Day; that is, so often the Law of Nature doth require for the Worship of God, from all men, by way of command, but no oftener (though not forbidding oftener, but only seldomer;) because Nature seems to have no Frequenter distinct revolution than a Day; And that it hath, and is able to observe and take notice of; and accordingly is able to Worship God, even solemnly so often; There being no impediment imaginable, why within the Revolution of every Day, a man may not give God some solemn Worship. But we say, though this seems a fair assertion, and suitable to what we had before, of the Natural Continuance of a Day, yet if we shall speak Practically and Ethically (as we did partly before of the Continuance) we must deliver ourselves somewhat otherwise; and indeed so we must also in a mere Physical or Astronomical consideration of the Revolution of a Day. And 1. XXXII. Twice a day, at least. then in that consideration we say that the Law of Nature, if it make any Conclusive determination of the Frequency of Time for God's worship, it must be of twice every Day. Because there is indeed a twofold revolution or Frequency observable in every Day Naturally; the beginning, and the end: In each of which it is undoubtedly possible to tender to God some Worship: And so it is Practically; A man's first waking, and his lying down to sleep, are two distinct observable Revolutions, appliable to God's Worship, we do not now here speak of the Quando, whether Nature's Law doth command to take the first Time of waking, and the last Time before sleep, for solemn Worship (that may be considered afterward) But we say that these two are distinct and observable revolutions of Time in every Day: And so each of them affording a remarkable possibility of Worshipping God: The Law of Nature (upon the former grounds of Gods being our happiness, and the Sovereign Lord of all our Time) cannot but determine both those Times to make a Conclusive determination of the Frequency (if any such may be made) or at least an Initial determination; that is, so often at least as twice in every Day, once in the morning, and once toward night, the Law of Nature doth determine for solemn Worship to every man. This we mean of such Days as we call working Days, out of which Nature's Law determines twice every such Day, to tender some solemn Worship to God; As well as it doth the whole of one Day (in a man's life) as we discoursed before; of which Day or any such Days, we speak not in this Argument; Because though the particular Duties are divers, on such a Day and some to be repeated twice, or oftener, as prayer; Yet this in the whole is counted but once, one Continuance, because no worldly thing, unless by reason of present necessity (for which a reservation is made) may come in, and interrupt the Continuance at all. But now therefore when we speak of twice a Day, we speak of those Days which are mainly for worldly businesses: that even notwithstanding that they are so by God's allowance and appointment, N. B. (whether in Nature or Scripture,) yet the Law of Nature doth determine, a double Frequency of Religious services, every such Day, of every man's life. Only we say not, that any Continuance is strictly determined with this Frequency, that so long a man must continue at his devotions twice every Day. But that so oft, at least for the Frequency, the Law of Nature commands, we thus in a word further make plain. XXXIII. Confirmed by reason. [If it be sin against the Law of Nature not to worship God every Day twice, than the Law of Nature determines to every man the Frequency of every Day twice. But it is a sin against the Law of Nature not to Worship God every Day twice: Ergo.] The consequence hath been confirmed by like Arguments. The Antecedent is also certainly thus made good. [That which is contrary to the acknowledgement of Gods being the Lord of all our Time, and our happiness, is a sin against the Law of Nature, but not to worship God every day twice, is contrary to those acknowledgements, Ergo.] The Major cannot be denied, and hath often been proved. The Minor is also infallible, because that acknowledgement, calls for as Frequent Worship of God as Nature can possibly point out, and possibly give to God: But we have already shown how Nature doth point out clearly, and distinctly two Revolutions of Time every Day, and that it is infallibly possible to apply both of them to give God some Worship, at least in a short Continuance, as a minute, or half a minute together. Therefore not to give God so oft some Worship, is against that acknowledgement, and so a sin against the Law of Nature, which also it is more than probable, God meant to teach his people, by the appointment of the daily morning and evening Sacrifice. And this Frequency of twice every Day for some solemn Worship of God, though it primarily respect Solitary Worship, XXXIV. 1 With respect to solitary worship. which is (as we said in a former Chapter) the most Essentially and Properly Morall-Naturall solemn Worship, and Perpetually necessary, as being perpetually possible; for even while a man is in the midst of a crowd, it is possible for him, to present to God such solitary and secret Worship as we have described to be solemn, even the whole man being intent on no other thing for that while, how short so ever the Continuance prove: So that we cannot possibly conceive what can hinder a man (and so what can excuse him) from such tender of some solemn Worship to God solitary and single by himself twice every Day, Namely between morning and noon, and between noon and his sleeping at night: Yet withal, 2. As also to family worship. we wish all those that have, or may have company to join with them in Family Worship, to consider seriously between God and their consciences, whether the forementioned grounds for solemn family Worship, be so far forth also Morall-Naturall, as it is possible to be performed with any conveniency; and then the Argument but even now mentioned, laid together; will not also evince it to be Morall-Naturall, for such to perform solemn family worship, as often, namely twice a Day, once in the morning, or toward noon, and once in the evening, or at night. We are very sensible, That this will be a very harsh pill for many Readers to swallow: family Duties being so exceedingly neglected, and even disputed against by very many, as no where commanded in Scripture. Therefore we only propound it again to all consciences to weigh in sobriety, what just hindrances they can have, and so what excuses they can possibly plead, which God will accept of, if they tender him not such Worship so often, they and all their families ordinarily? And whether a quarter of an hour, or half a quarter at a Time, can be refused by any, but minds forgetful of the Sovereignty of God; and the obligation they own to Him for His Protection and Blessing Night and Day, preserving from dangers, and prospering endeavours; and the dependence they have upon Him continually, without whom, sin and misery will at all seiasons seze upon them; and again forgetful, that their Spiritual Happiness lies in Him, conversing with Him, and pursuing, and enjoying His Favour? And then we suppose, the issue of their religious and conscientious thoughts will be no other; then that rather more and oftener, than seldomer and less, is due to God and necessary for them and their families for their own good, of soul and body, spiritual, and even temporal; namely, to secure a blessing upon themselves every way Daily. XXXV. Nature cannot make a conclusive determination of the Frequency. But to return to our Question, whether thus often by a Conclusive Determination of the Frequency for Solemn Worship, and that the Law of Nature doth require no oftener then twice a Day? Besides, that if that be good which we have but now discoursed, of twice required for solitary Worship, and twice for family Worship also, we have already gotten to four times a day, instead of twice; we add yet further, that we cannot absolutely rest here for a certain, definite and determinate number, or Frequency. For if we speak still Practically (as we must in matter of Religion) These determinations of twice (or four Times) every Day will not infallibly satisfy the Law of Nature: Nor indeed any other number of Frequency that can be named. And so in a word we say, [That the Law of nature cannot possibly make a Conclusive determination of the Frequency of Time, considered simply, for God's Worship;] that is, That so often should be peremptorily necessary for all men, and no oftener; and so that so often should be sufficient for all men generally considered, The reason of it. although some particulars might be yet obliged to some what oftener. The reason hereof is plainly this, That Practically it is possible to observe a revolution of Time wherein we may, if we have hearts to it, set ourselves to Worship God even solemnly, as oft as our minds cease from being taken up wholly with any worldly business, and that such business will by any means admit an interruption of a minute, or half a minute, to lift up the soul to God in Prayer or Praises; and this may possibly be manifold Times in a Day (even innumerable before hand:) And now the Law of Nature, from those often mentioned (and ever to be thought on) acknowledgements of Gods being our Sovereign Lord, and of all our Time, and our happiness; and so to be infinitely preferred before ourselves and all our worldly businesses, will be constantly calling upon us in all those Revolutions of Time, to ●ender to Him some Worship, how short soever. And from this, no consideration of Gods (not only dispensation, but) command, to employ ourselves in worldly callings, and perform such worldly businesses as are necessary accordingly; can be pretended to be a sufficient discharge, absolutely, and always. For we have before proved, in the Chapter of Solemn Worship, and it is not denied by any that we know, [That it is oftentimes a Duty, (which we now say, is according to the Law of Nature) not only in the midst of Worldly businesses to tender some Ejaculatory Worship to God, namely, Prayers and Praises; But even upon sundry occasions, to interrupt for a little while our Worldly businesses wholly, to pray to Him, and praise Him somewhat solemnly.] Therefore we say again, that these occasions being impossible to be numbered beforehand, for any one man, (and much less for all generally) there can be no certain Conclusive Determination of the Frequency, by the Law of Nature; that just so often, and no oftener, should be necessary for solemn worshipping of God by all men. And now from this we go on to our third Question propounded, XXXVI. Nature cannot make a conclusive determination of the Continuance and Frequency jointly. concerning the joining of these two Respects of Time, the Continuance and Frequency, both in one Conclusive Determination: that is, [Whether the Law of Nature can possibly make a Conclusive Determination of both these Respects of Continuance and Frequency jointly, and so do make up the chief solemn Time for Worship? And if not, yet whether the Light of Nature will not then tell us, that there must be such a Determination necessarily made for Religion? and what conditions and qualifications it must have? And so consequently, where we are to seek it, and may be like, or certain to find it. In answer whereunto, 1. Confessed by the adverse party. we have in the first branch of this Question, (though it be so but in a few points besides, about the main matters in the whole Argument) our Anti-Sabbatarians full and constant agreement with us; Namely, in resolution of this Inquirie, in the Conclusion, (though not altogether in the Argument proving it:) [That the Law of Nature doth not make any such Conclusive Determination of both the Respects of Time, the Continuance and Frequency jointly, for God's worship.] So we suppose, that it doth not, nor cannot: and so they say the same in sense, with much earnestness; in as much as they make it their principal argument against the fourth Commandments being Moral for one Day in seven; because (say they) the Law of Nature doth not command any such thing. Which Argument of theirs, as appliable against the Morality of one Day in seven, though we deny the Consequence of, (as taking Moral to be that which is Universal and Perpetual, though it be not of the Law of Nature; whereas they by Moral will only understand Morall-Naturall, as we have showed in the first Chapter) Yet we take hold of the Antecedent, [That the Law of Nature doth not command any such thing:] neither the Determinate Proportion of Continuance in such a Frequency, nor any other; that is, not distinctly, strictly, and conclusively. And that they not hereafter recede from it, we will make bold with the Readers patience, to prove it ourselves also, upon our own grounds; that so, hoping to build very considerably upon it by and by, we may not lay the weight of our fabric, in any matter of importance, merely upon their grants (as we said but a while ago) or build, as it were, upon another man's foundation. Thus therefore we argue— XXXVII. 2. Proved by strong reason. [If man, by the light of Nature, cannot judge any Continuance, and Frequency of Time jointly, to be sufficient to be bestowed in God's worship, unless it be the whole of a man's Time, that is, the whole Continuance of every Day; then the Law of Nature doth not make any such Conclusive Determination of the Continuance and Frequency of Time jointly, for the worship of God. But man, by the Light of Nature is not able to judge any Continuance and Frequency of Time jointly determined to be sufficient to be bestowed in God's worship, unless it be the whole of a man's Time, that is, the whole Continuance of every Day. Ergo.] The Consequence is certain: 1. From the description of such a Conclusive Determination, formerly given; Namely, that as it requires strictly so much, so oft, and so oft so much as is expressed: so it requires not any more so oft, nor so much any oftener, than is expressed. 2. From the Light of Nature, being the ground of the Law of Nature: and so the Law of Nature requires no greater proportion of Continuance and Frequency jointly, than the Light of Naaure must needs judge is sufficient: For if it judge that unsufficient, than the Law of Nature accordingly strait would require more, and oftener. And so the Conclusive Determination is not made, till the Light of Nature have judged the proportion sufficient; and that being not to be done, there is no such Determination made by the Law of Nature. The Antecedent is easily proved, by appealing to the former principles of the Light and Law of Nature: Of Gods being the Sovereign Lord of us, and all our Time, and our happiness. For what can be said to satisfy these principles, and to argue that sufficient Time is given to God, unless He have all? Where all that a man hath is due to another; that debt is not satisfied, neither can it be judged to be satisfied, unless all be tendered to him. Also where a man's whole happiness lies, less than all his time cannot be judged sufficient to be employed toward that; for what can be pretended to draw a man away from his happiness, when all that a man doth is but toward that? The light of Nature than cannot judge less than all a man's Time to be sufficient to be given to God, and bestowed in waiting upon Him, and conversing with Him. If it be said that the light of Nature will tell every man, XXXVIII. An objection Answered. that he cannot live, if he devote all his Time to wait upon God solemnly. We answer, 1. This will infer no more, then that the Law of Nature upon that ground, makes a Reservation for Natural necessities of sleep and eating, and such like, and so providing necessaries merely for preservation of a man's bodily life; and still calls for all the rest of the Time. 2. That it being altogether uncertain, by any rules, or principles of the light of Nature, how much Time is altogether absolutely necessary for those natural necessities of the body, it helps to make it impossible for a man, by the light of Nature to say, that such Continuance and Frequency of Time (whatsoever can be supposed) is sufficient for God: For if Nature can give more, this is not sufficient: and it is still uncertain whether Nature can give more, or else it will be uncertain whether Nature can give so much, leaving room for those Natural necessities of the body. We conclude then, that the Law of Nature neither doth, nor can Determine the necessary sufficient chief Time, for Continuance and Frequency jointly. And so that we are so far from Asserting, That the Law of Nature Determines us to one in seven (or that one day in seven according to the fourth Commandment is Morall-Naturall) as the sufficient Time conclusively determined for Religion, That we say the Law of Nature would rather command more often a day, or more than that proportion of fourteen, or sixteen hours of a week; and call for one day of every six or five, or four, or three, or each other day; or half, or more of every day: But indeed none of all this certainly or conclusively; because (as we said) the light of Nature can in no wise Determine, how much is sufficient for Religion, or how much worldly necessities can possibly admit. Our Antisabbatarian-Adversaries therefore may hereafter spare their Arguments, whereby they labour to prove the fourth Commandment for one day in seven, not to be Morall-Naturall. For we also avouch it, and have helped to prove it, though little to their advantage (as we suppose) as we shall show them anon. XXXIX. Yet Nature says a Determination of a chief time is necessary. We pass then to the second branch of our Inquiry about this chief Time, and a conclusive Determination of it: Of a necessary and sufficient Continuance and Frequency jointly [Whether the light of Nature will not tell us that, There must be necessarily such a Determination made for Religion? and what conditions and qualifications it must have? Confessed by the adverse party. ] Now hear again, if our adversaries authority were sufficient to satisfy consciences; or that we durst trust them, that they would be constant to their noted Assertions; we might save the labour of proving generally, that there must be such a Determination of a sufficient Time. Forasmuch as it is very frequent with them, To make this the Morality, and the whole Morality of the fourth Commandment: To require a sufficient Time for Solemn Worship: A set regulated, stinted, sufficient Time, say they every where, is of the Law of Nature, and Morall-Naturall, for all men. But these confessions or professions of theirs, do in no wise satisfy us, so as to rest upon them simply; and that for divers reasons: 1. Because they are not constant to them, but in stead of this they as often make the Morality to be only Public Worship, (which they only call Solemn Worship) and then the Time is required only by consequence, and as a sequel of a Morality, wherein Place is as much Moral, as Time; and accordingly so they usually Assert Time and Place to be equal circumstances in Religion: And yet they do not usually speak out, concerning Place [That a set, stinted, regulated place should be Morall-Naturall.] And much less do they, or indeed can they say any thing of the Sufficiency of Place toward Religion, as of Time they do and must. Therefore their inconstancy makes us, that we dare put no weight upon their acknowledgement. 2. Because though in talking of the sufficiency of this Time, they sometimes speak Rationally concerning the Frequency, and [That less Frequent than the Jews had, we Christians must not have our solemn Times] (Though to this also they are not constant neither, for sometimes they seem to argue for more often, as one in six or five, and another Time, they reason, that one in seven is not more necessary by the Law of Nature, than one in eight or ten, of both which more hereafter:) Yet we cannot observe that they offer to speak any thing distinctly about the sufficiency of the Continuance to be determined, no not for the public worship: But leave it all uncertainly to the Church's determinations. The Historian, he seems to approve most of those Churches that have it only in the forenoon. The Author of Sunday no Sabbath, speaks some what, only of two hours in the whole. Others also keep aloof from any clear expression of themselves about this sufficiency for the Continuance; which yet is the Principal controversy of all the dispute; and for the sake of which all the other disputes are started by the Antisabbatarians, as we have formerly noted, and which we desire much may be remembered. 3. Because also, though some of them seem now and then, as if they would gratify us with a little proportion also of Continuance for private Duties, and so improving of the public by meditating and conferring of those things they have been publicly conversant in, afterward for their benefit; Yet this is so seldom, and so faintly and fearfully (lest they should endanger their whole Cause, with being too liberal in their grants, as in very deed they do for all that, if they would but hold to them, as we hope to show them in due Time;) and the thing is of such importance, that we must be feign to trust to our own Proofs and Arguments for every thing; laying as strong foundations as we can, all the way we go; and particularly in this matter of a sufficient Time necessarily to be determined: which is one of the main corner Stones, upon which the weight of our whole Fabric must rest and be settled. But part hereof we have already said in the foregoing Chapter about a general Necessity of determination for Religion, particularly the profitableness of such a determination: Unto which now we add what more properly infers the necessity of it. XL. The qualifications of the Conclusive determination. And here, that we may be the better understood, and may proceed more convincingly; we will first state our Assertion, and set down the qualifications and conditions which this Conclusive determination of both the Continuance and Frequency of Time jointly must have; (as we suppose) and so the Nature of this chief Time necessary and sufficient for all men ordinarily; and then we shall labour to prove it both generally, and particularly according to those conditions expressed. 1. Then we say, It must be of so large Continuance; as to afford Time, not only for public Worship, but also for family Worship, and solitary Worship too; and so the determination must not only allow liberty to the willing so to employ the whole Continuance, in all the varieties of these, and all the while in one or other of them (always excepting, as before, Necessary Reservations, wherein yet God and the soul are still to have as great a share as may be, namely at meals and the like) But also necessitate every one so to do; which is the primary end of a determination or command about Time, specially strict and Conclusive, as hath been showed. 2. The Proportion in the whole, of the Continuance and Frequency joined, is to be but so large, as that it may be demonstrated; that with less, God is not sufficiently honoured, nor the good of men's souls sufficiently secured and advanced; and so that such a proportion in the whole is infallibly necessary to Religion: As also that that Proportion may undeniably be spared ordinarily from worldly businesses by all mankind; (with admission still of reservation,) and so no sober conscience, even though somewhat unwilling to spend so much Time upon Religion, can reasonably deny it to be necessary; or challenge it to be too injurious to necessary worldly businesses. 3. That the distribution of that whole proportion, between the Continuance and the Frequency, be so wisely ordered; as that there may be a certainty, that men's worldly businesses be not unsufferably disappointed, by too great Frequency, how short soever the Continuance be, which yet must have space (as is said above) for Worship, not only public, but domestic, and even solitary. Whereunto is to be also added, That the authority or at least the wisdom of the distributer and determiner, be so undeniable in the case, as that hereby again the unwilling (either in regard of themselves or theirs) be necessitated to yield to such determination and distribution, as necessary (or most fit, which in practickes is all one with necessary, upon the supposition,) and the willing be able to plead it for themselves, and theirs also, against all disputers and gainsayers. 4. That the whole proportion, and the distribution of it, between the Continuance and Frequency, be so largely and wisely determined, as that it may be certainly sufficient (namely for the chief Time) ordinarily for all men; and that in three regards. 1. of God's acceptation, that he is pleased with such a proportion and such a distribution of it, and would not have more (ordinarily of all men) for the general proportion, nor that otherwise distributed. 2. Of the soul's benefit withal, in necessary knowledge, and for spiritual affection, to the attainment of Salvation. 3. Of a consciences security, which may be apt to doubt, either whether the proportion be sufficient in regard either of God's acceptation, or the soul's Good; or whether it be sufficiently and rightly distributed between the Continuance and Frequency, so as to satisfy those ends of it. 5. It must ever be remembered that this is but a Conclusive determination, and not Exclusive; and so though this be the chief Time (and sufficient as such a Time) yet not the only Time determined; by God, who by the Law of Nature (and insinuation also of the word) hath besides determined the Frequency of twice a Day, at least, (of the working Days) both for domestic Worship, and solitary Worship; and by His providence doth still now and then determine to this or that Nation, or Church, or Family, or Person, a Day of Fasting and Humiliation or Thanksgiving extraordinarily; and besides allows them liberty to determine to themselves (and theirs) some other Times, as also to employ some voluntarily, so fare forth as may, and will stand with their worldly necessary callings, and that they do not impose or observe them as equally necessary with those of Gods own determination. We say then the sufficiency of this Time we now dispute of, is not absolute, but for such a kind of Time, for the chief Time, or which fully includes the whole Nature of it, for the necessary and ordinarily sufficient chief solemn Time of Worship for all men. All other Time being either 1. Less necessary, as all Times, merely of man's appointment, or 2. Less ordinary, as the extraordinary Days of humiliation, or thanksgiving, which Gods providence may sometime determine: or 3. Less solemn, as the Daily Frequencies determined by the Law of Nature, which have no determination of any Continuance express with them; and 4. Finally all also together, are less chief and sufficient; because this is to have the chief strength both of Continuance and Frequency jointly, to such a sufficiency, as is before expressed. Which we desire may be remembered; as well to distinguish this Time, from all other Times: as also that to spare unnecessary repetitions we may be allowed to call this Time, the necessary and sufficient Time; or the ordinary sufficient Time; or barely the sufficient Time, or the chief Time of Worship; and may not be mistaken in these expressions; but understood, as we have here delivered ourselves. XLI. The necessity of such a determinati●● proved. Now for the proof generally, of the necessity of the determination of such a chief Time for Religion, we propound this one main and General Argument: [That without which Religion cannot certainly stand among all men, is necessary to be determined for all men: But without such a chief Time determined for solemn Worship, Religion cannot certainly stand among all men. Ergo, Such a chief Time for solemn Worship is necessary to be determined for all men.] The Major needs little proof to any conscience, For as Religion is necessary to all men, So must needs be the means and helps, without which it cannot stand among all men. The means and the end so fare as they are conjoined, are equally necessary in Natural and Theological reason. So that among whomsoever of mankind, Religion cannot stand without such a chief Time determined; It is all one to leave them without such a Time, and to leave them without Religion. As than no man is left without a necessity of being Religious, so no man is left without a necessity of a chief Time to be determined. The Minor, before we offer to prove it, we crave leave to explain and clear two expressions in it. One is the Word (certainly;) The other the phrase (Among all Men.) 1. By the Word Certainly, we mean according to the certainty of ordinary means and helps; Among which we affirm such a determination of such a sufficient Time to be; not denying but extraordinarily, and by a singular grace and blessing of God, a man may attain to Salvation, though he never observed or never heard of such a Time determined. God can plant Religion, how and in whom He pleases, and preserve it without ordinary means if He see good: But we can see no certainty ordinarily, how mankind should preserve Religion in their souls, without such a determination of Time for it, and a suitable observation of it, with as much care and conscience, as other ordinances and means, and helps of Religion. 2. By the phrase, Among all men, we mean, that the greatest part of mankind cannot maintain Religion in their souls, without such a determination of a sufficient Time for it; such namely, as have a constant and full employment in a worldly calling, whether inferiors (specially) or even superiors and Governors of families, or of Towns, or Countries and Commonwealths: Religion cannot (Certainly, that is, Ordinarily) stand among them, who are fare the greatest part of minkind, without a sufficient Time determined and conscionably observed. Though we grant, that among some of mankind, who have no great business in worldly employments, but have leisure much, even every Day, ordinarily, to bestow divers hours upon Religion, God's Worship and their souls good, and to Frequent the public Worship where ever it is near them: Such might perhaps keep up Religion in their consciences, though they were not under (or did not know themselves to be under) any such determination of a sufficient Time necessary to be observed for Religion. As also more specially, those whose callings, and particular employments are properly within the sphere of Religion, as Divines and Ministers of the Word of God, may much more easily be Religious in their own Persons, by their daily and continual employment in the study, Meditation, Writing, and Speaking of Matters of Religion, even though they should have no sufficient Time solemn determined to them with others (that they knew of and did own,) but only the Times of the Public exercises of their Ministry, which we say, and shall prove anon, is greatly unsufficient for the general of mankind. And this very thing we are persuaded hath been an occasion, XIII. A profitable digression about a daily Sabbath. whereby, at least in part, sundry Divines, even of prime note, in the Reformed Churches abroad, who have spoken and written (seemingly at least) over-injuriously against the fourth Commandment, injoining perpetually one whole Day of seven to be employed merely for Religion; have been deceived in the point of the Necessity of the Perpetuity of the Commandment in that sense; and have spoken so much of making every Day a Sabbath, and so keeping a continual Sabbath: because themselves did so very much, by the advantage, and even necessity of their Callings, being spiritual, and in the road of Religion, and their minds withal full of zeal and religious affections. And thus we are the more inclined to believe, because the very same Divines, when they think of other men, speak very fairly toward the Perpetuity of a seventh day Sabbath, as necessary for all men: As may be seen, among others, by that one place of him, who is esteemed the chiefest of the Disputers against it, of Mr. Calvin, we mean, in his Commentary upon Genesis 2.3. who thus speaks: Benedictio ista nihil aliu●●est, quam solemnis consecratio, qua sibi Deus studia & occupationes hominum asserit die septimo. Est quidem legitima hac totiva vitae meditatio, in qua se quotidic exerceant, immensam Dei bonitatem, justitiam, virtutem, sapientiam in hoc magnifico coeli terraeque theatro considerare: verum si fortominus sedulo quam par esset ad cam intenti essent homines ad supplendum quod assiduae meditationi deerat, septimu● quisque dies peculiariter delectus est. Primum ergo quievit Deus: deinde benedixit hanc quietem, in soeculis omnibus inter homines sancta soret; vel septimum quemque diem quieti dicerit, ut suum exemplum perpetua esset regula.— Denique sacra est ista vocatio, quae homines mundi impedimentis eripit, ut totos Dei cultui addicant— Praetereasciend●● est, non 〈◊〉 tantum vel atatis vel populi, sed totias humani generis commune esse hoc exercition.— Quies spirituisis est carnis mortificatio, ne ampliussibi vivant filli Dei, aut propriae voluntati indulgeant. Quod eam Sabbathum figuravit, temporale fuisse dico. Quod autem ab initio mandatum fuit hominibus, nice exerceant in Dei cultu, me●ito ad mundi finem usque durare oportet. Calv. in Gen. 2. [That Blessing is nothing but a solemn Consecration, whereby God challenges to Himself the cares and employments of Man.] And afterward, [To supply the defects of Daily Meditation, every seventh Day was peculiarly chosen: First, GOD rested, and then He blessed this rest, that it might be holy among Men, in all ages: He dedicated every seventh Day to rest, that His example might be a perpetual rule.] And again, [This Vocation is sacred, which takes men off from Worldly impediments, to give themselves wholly to GOD.] And yet further, [We must know, that this is the common exercise, not of one Age or People only, but of all Mankind.] And finally, after he had mentioned another end afterward added to the Sabbath under the Law to the Jews, namely typical of Christ; he remarkably concludes with these words: [That the Sabbath did figure that, (sc. our Mortification) it was temporary: But that it was given to Men from the beginning, that they should exercise themselves in the Worship of GOD, worthily it ought to endure to the World's end.] Thus he. Than which (and so the whole of the matter in that place) nothing can be spoken more judiciously, or more Orthodoxly. But other where, he, and others, (forgetting, we believe, the necessary Worldly businesses of other men) seem to speak, as it besides a time for Public Worship, there were no other Sabbath now, but a continual every-days Sabbath; It being (as we said) very much so with themselves; and so they not finding a special need of a seventh Day wholly to be a Sabbath, in regard of themselves, spoke more unwarily of the Commandment, than, we are persuaded, they would now have done, if they had lived in our Time, and seen their own, and other people, undone by profanations of it. (Which hath made also divers Divines of those Parts, to speak more fully for the fourth Commandment of late, then formerly; as we shall note hereafter.) But this by the way, and in a kind of digression, not unuseful, we hope. And so having cleared our meaning in the Minor of our Argument, we come to prove it, Namely, [That without a Chief Time determined sufficiently for Solemn Worship, Religion cannot certainly stand among all men.] Thus we further argue: [If without a sufficient Time determined, both for Continuance, XLIII. The Minor confirmed. and Frequency jointly, no sufficient Time will be generally observed among Mankind, for Religion: Then, without such a Time determined, Religion cannot certainly stand among all Mankind. But without such a sufficient Time determined, no sufficient Time will be generally observed. Ergo, Without such a sufficient Time determined, Religion cannot certainly stand among all Mankind.] The Consequence of this Argument may be undeniably made good, by the consideration, that without a sufficient Time observed for Religion, Men who are borne void of the knowledge of God, and unapt enough to learn it, will never attain a sufficiency of knowledge for the honouring of God in their hearts and lives, and saving their own souls: Nor is it imaginable, that they can possibly come to such knowledge, either by the Continuance of one whole Day once in their lives, (of which we disputed before) or by the addition of a few Minutes, twice, or thrice, or four times every Day, by snatches and sudden fits. Man's nature is too froward, too much corrupted, to learn the mystery of heaven and salvation so by the by; as experience superabundantly proclaims, even where there is a great deal more Time than so allotted to it, and observed for it. Also, 2. without such a sufficient Time observed for Religion, The great duty of love to God, which is the fundamental affection, and even the sum of all Piety, can never, in an ordinary course, be attained, or preserved, or exercised and expressed. Men are as averse from God's love, as ignorant in the knowledge of Him: And even though they have a knowledge of the Doctrine of God, (as many have, not only competently, but even eminently, by having been trained up to it, and having spent much time upon it, from their youth up) yet they may be Atheists in regard of affection, and wholly devoid of all love to God. And there is no ordinary means to work their hearts to such a holy love, but by their being busied a convenient space of Time, and that frequently, in the services of God, hearing of Him, and meditating of Him, and the like; whereby they may come to be convinced of the reality and certainty of those divine truths which they have learned to know, and see a necessity of loving and embracing them, and God in them, above all. Acquaintance breeds love, between those that were strangers: So doth acquaintance with God, by the observation of sufficient convenient times of attendance upon His Ordinances. Also, if in any, some beginning of love and affection be bred, there is no preserving of it from decay, but by frequent and conveniently continued intercourses and converses in holy duties. Any man, that disuses these, or curtals the Times of them, will, and doth find in himself, (if he consider himself at all) a sensible coldness, and a strangeness grow upon him, to the utter endangering of all the love of God in his soul, which in the mean time the World in general, and particular Creatures, which have encroached upon his Times, have stolen also away even all the love from God; which can never be regained, unless by renewing (even with enlargement oftentimes) the former Continuances and Frequencies of Times observed for Religion and Devotion. Withal there is not any so kindly or proper an expression or exercise of love to God any other way, as this of observing convenient Times of Continuance and Frequency in spiritual converses with Him. Love, where there is not a violent detention from the object, or party loved, admits not a forbearance of attendance long, neither can it content itself with sudden snatches; a word or two, and away; a secret whisper, and no more: But though it is glad of these occasionally, and, as it were, by way of overplus to solemn converses; yet cannot be satisfied upon those terms; but must, and will observe just Continuances, and those frequently, so as to make up a convenient sufficiency of Times; and where this is not, there is no general and ordinary way for men to exercise and express any love to God: But the love, and all the main exercise and expressions of it, will go away after the World, pleasures, friends, honours, riches, as they that wallow up all the Time, in a manner. And upon this, the World is so universally and perpetually a real Comment, that it is needless to discourse further of it. The Consequence then of our Argument is sufficiently settled, That without a sufficient Time observed, Religion cannot certainly stand among all men. The Antecedent, XLIV. The Antecedent confirmed. That [without a sufficient Time generally determined for all men, no sufficient Time will be generally observed by all men] may also be certainly evinced from the discourse in the former Chapter of the Necessity of some Determination of Time for Religion, specially in reference to men's general unwillingness to be conversant in duties of Religion; and the many interruptions of worldly businesses, seeming continually necessary, one day, and hour, and time after another, so as to leave no room at all for any considerable solemn worship of God (by men of full worldly employments) unless there be an antecedent Determination of Time, necessitating them to lay aside such worldly businesses, to attend on God. And without this, not so much as an hour in a twelvemonth, would many a man, even many thousands of men, neither be willing to attend upon God and his worship; nor even find leisure, through one business or other still following in the neck of another: And therefore much less would they else observe any tolerably sufficient Time for Continuance and Frequency, without some Determination of it to them beforehand. Witness many men's total and perpetual neglect of all Times of Devotion, which they are not fully convinced, that either God, or such Superiors among men, whom they dare not disobey in the particular, have infallibly determined unto them, and enjoined them to observe. Children, servants, parents, masters, men, women, young, old, great and small, manifest this more than enough, to them that have but any will to take notice of it. We conclude then our general proof of the Necessity of a sufficient Time to be determined for Religion, [That it is no less necessary for the general of mankind, in an ordinary course, than Religion itself.] And that, as without Religion, (we mean, Religious performances of holy duties first; and then, from the strength of them, a Religious Conversation in all matters) not honouring of God, nor no salvation for men: So without the observation of sufficient Times for Continuance and Frequency in duties of Solemn Worship, no Religion: and without the Determination of such sufficient Times, no Observation of them generally by all men. And therefore such Determination of them is unavoidably necessary for the general of Mankind. Now for the particulars. XLV. The first qualification of the Determination proved with respect The first is, that of this sufficient Time, (or these sufficient Times) of Continuance and Frequency determined jointly, The Continuance must be so large, as to afford Time not only for Public Worship, but for Family-Worship also, and likewise for Solitary Worship; and so, the Determination must command the Practice of each of these, as they are possible to be had, and the whole Continuance to be employed in one or other of them, excepting necessary Reservations, etc. This is a main and most important Point to be cleared. For as our Assertion is universally held by all that plead for the Morality of one whole Day in seven for a Sabbath, according to the Commandment: So is it universally denied by all Anti-Sabbatarian Disputers, who wholly confine the sufficiency of the time to be determined, to the Public Worship; even making the Public Worship to be the very Morality and Substance of the fourth Commandment; and Time but as a circumstance of it, or adjunct; Necessary indeed, but only as it is necessary to any other business; and so someties they call their sufficient Time, but only the Sequel of a Morality. We confess, some of them do so far forget themselves for all this, as to let fall now and then a word toward Private Worship also, as part of the duty of the Day to be determined. But this is so seldom and so faintly, and is so contradicted by their own Tenets, that there is no trusting to their concession. But what we assert, must be proved as strongly as may be: And that done, there will be more done, than perhaps many Readers are yet ware of. ●. To the public worship. But first we will begin, even with that which they are so much for, the Public Worship; for the sake of other Readers, of whom some perhaps may be apt to question even the necessity of Solemn Times to be determined in a constant Frequency so much as for that, (the rather because of late we have heard the whisper of some such opinion, among some anabaptistical and Antimonian spirits) with that then we begin, we say. And shall make use of our general Argument before used, and apply it respectively to this and the other kinds of Worship. Thus than we argue: [1. If Religion cannot certainly stand among all men, without a convenient space of Continuance frequently observed in public Worship: then a sufficient Time must necessarily be determined for all men, wherein they both may and must exercise themselves in public Worship. But Religion cannot certainly stand among all men without a convenient space of Continuance frequently observed in Public Worship. Ergo, A sufficient Time must necessarily be determined for all men, wherein they both may, and must exercise themselves in Public Worship.] For the clearing of this argument: By the words, Certainly, and among all men, we understand as before, Ordinarily, according to God's usual working in all sorts: and not as things may be by his extraordinary grace to some that can have no help from any public ordinances, nor as some extraordinary persons may shift without them. Also by Public Worship, we understand, not that which is presented only in a public place, as in Churches, where there is public and free liberty to serve God, without fear or danger of persecution: But such Worship as is tendered by an Assembly of Christians of divers families, wherein some Minister or Ministers of God are employed between God and His People, to dispense to them His Word and Sacraments, and present to Him their Prayers and Praises: in whatsoever place this be, in a Church, a private house, a field, a wood, a cave, a ship, or the like: So that the term of Public, relates to the persons, and not to the place, in this argument. The Consequence of which, is, we suppose, sufficiently confirmed before in the general argument, in the necessity of using all ordained and possible means of advancing and preserving Religion among all men; and the necessity of such a Determination of such Times, as are necessary to be observed; by reason of men's unwillingness, and interruptions. The Antecndent may certainly be evinced, by God's frequent and earnest charges to His Ministers to preach His Word, and be instant in season and out of season: and to His people, to assemble themselves together, not forsaking the practice of it, (as the manner of some was) and to be swift to hear, and not to despise Prophesying; telling them, that Faith is begotten (ordinarily) not without hearing, and that of a Preacher sent of God, for such public service; and that they are blest, that wait at the gates of Wisdoms house, and at the posts of her doors, and the like. All which show, that it concerns the Honour of God, in such a sort to have His people assemble themselves to worship Him, particularly by hearing of His Word preached to them; and accordingly by Prayer:, and administration of the Sacraments. Neither is God sufficiently honoured by such persons, as having opportunity of joining in His Worship in this sort publicly with others, restrain themselves constantly within their own families, upon what pretence soever. But the necessity of this is yet more clear, from the consideration of the good of men's souls, which do extremely stand in need of it. In the most families all the world over, the abilities of private Christians (even of governor's of families) are not such, as will ordinarily suffice to build up themselves and their families in the faith and fear of God, without the help of a constant public Ministry. And by reason of their manifold worldly employments and businesses, they have not leisure to apply themselves much and often to study the Scriptures, and matters of Religion and Conscience, no not for themselves sufficiently, and much less for others; and so cannot but be ignorant of many things, and mistake and mis-understand many others even of special importance for God's honour, and their own and others salvation; which again calls for as necessary, their attendance upon a Public Ministry, whose gifts and studies are distilled for their benefit, and whose Sermons clear truths, and urge practice of duties, and avoidance of sins; and present comforts to them, with much more evidence and strength of Divine reason, than they could of themselves have lighted upon, or by any private help usually have attained unto. And this hath been so universally acknowledged by all Christians, in all Ages and Countries, that where there hath been any number of them near one another, they have had their Church-Assemblies, or Public Worship, though forced to be in private houses, and even in fields, and woods, and caves; and to observe the times in the nights, or in the morning before day, to avoid the rage of Persecutors, as much as might be: and yet choosing rather to hazard the exposing their bodies and bodily substance to their fury, if they were surprised, (as sometimes they were) then to neglect such a joint serving of God, and hazard their souls for want of such public ordinances and means of Grace. Add hereunto the contrary experience in our Kingdom and Nation; that where any, (as too many in divers places) whether poor or rich, servants or others, upon any considerations whatsoever, do usually neglect the public assemblies, and so come to no Church, nor public Ordinances ordinarily, they are either grossly ignorant, or profane, or both: in a word, at the best, but civil Atheists, devoid of any true sense of Religion, or regard of God, or their souls. And so we suppose the first branch concerning Public Worship, is sufficiently confirmed, That the ordinary solemn Time for all men must extend to that, and determine a convenient Continuance for that: But not for that alone, but for domestic and family-worship also; Which is our second branch, now to be confirmed, XLVI. 2 To Family Worship. That the sufficient Time must be of so large Continuance, as to extend also to that, and require men that live in Families where they have others to join with them in the Worship, to tender such conjoined Worship, (besides the Public) in their several Families respectively. To prove this, we resume again our former Argument in this manner. [If Religion cannot certainly stand among all men, without a convenient space of Continuance frequently observed for Family Worship, over and above the Public Worship, Then the chief Solemn Time of Worship is not sufficiently determined for all men, unless the Continuance of it, be so largely extented, as to require Family Worship over and above the public. But Religion cannot certainly stand among all men, without a convenient space of Continuance frequently observed for Family Worship, over above the Public. Ergo, The chief Solemn Time of Worship, is not sufficiently determined for all men, unless the Continuance be so largely extended as to require Family Worship, over and above the Public.] The Consequence of this Argument is partly confirmed before; There needs only this to be added for the clearing of the Necessity of the Determination of such Time, to the observation of it: That otherwise, 1. Men and Women of other Families, would interrupt those that were willing to tender such Family Worship, oftentimes by visits of respect and compliment, and by coming to discourse with them about worldly businesses, bargains, news, or any thing; and they should not be able to avoid their importunities many times: only a tie of a determinate Time upon all sorts, may and will suffice to keep or send away such unnecessary interruptours of Religious Services. 2. Covetous or Profane Governors would else never look after their Families at all, but let them work or play, yea make them Work, after the Public Worship ended; Who yet may be awed to the contrary (as much as to any other Duty) by a certain and clear determination of Time to be employed in Family Worship, as well as Public. 3. Profane Servants and inferiors will not be brought into order, to join in Family Duties, unless they conceive the Time determined to them for it, at least, by their Superiors. That Family Worship than may be observed, there must be Sufficient Time determined for it. The Antecedent may be made good, partly by what we discoursed Chap. 6. about Family Worship in Genenall, the Necessity of it, for God's Honour and the Good of Souls; and partly by the adding of a fourfold Consideration briefly applied to the case in hand. 1. Experience shows, that in most Families, their worldly businesses are so many and pressing, that they have, (and can have) but short and scanty Times of Continuance on the ordinary working Days, for their joint Family Worship: Many pretend they cannot have any at all, for all their Families, and specially not twice a Day, according to what was discoursed before. Though this is but a worldly pretence, if it be meant ordinarily; and will hardly we doubt serve for an excuse, when God shall come to judge men for their worldly mindedness, as well as others sins, and preferring the World, getting goods, and following pleasures and the like, before conversing with Him, and their own souls, and the souls of their Families. But however, this confirms, that ordinarily such Times can be but scanty and short. Therefore there is the more need that upon the chief solemn Time, the extent of the Continuance be sufficient to afford a convenient space for Family Worship over and above the Public; and to take away all excuse of want of leisure from every one. 2. The need that all stand in to have their minds prepared, and put into frame for the Public Worship, calls for the same also. If men come rawly and rudely from worldly thoughts and businesses, into the Church and to the Public Worship, they will be in a great deal of danger to take God's Name in vain in it, specially at the beginning, and to lose a remarkable part of the benefit of it, by the unpreparedness of their minds; specially such as are of less knowledge and less affection towards godliness. And this cannot in reason be prevented any way so surely, as by some Family Duties preparing every one for the Public, and taking them off from worldliness and secular cogitations, and possessing them with an awe of the Duties they are going to perform more publicly. 3. No less, but rather much more, the improvement of the Public Worship necessarily calls for consequent Family Worship; for memory and further affecting of every one, by Repetitions, and Prayers, and Conferences. Every one hath needs of this, the best memories and the most zealous hearts, how much more the weak in both respects; and if any be able and zealous, it is so much the more a necessary Duty in them to help others as much as may be. This also (we mean particularly repetitions) will quicken the attentions of all sorts. Neither the servants, nor yet the Governors, will afford themselves leisure to sleep, or gaze, or muse of other matters during the Public Worship; if the one must give account, and the other must be able to require it and take it, which he cannot, if he himself have not given good attention. 4. Finally, the need that most have to labour with their Families to put more knowledge in them, than they have particular help for in the Public Services of the Day: I mean the need of continual catechising of them, (even beyond what is publicly done to those of their Family) makes up yet further the necessity of having and observing sufficient Times for Family Duties of Worship, besides the public, how long (or how well) soever continued. And all this, is so confirmed by the unhappy experience of those Families, where this is not regarded, not observed, that consideration of it is more necessary, than a prolix discourse upon it. He that looks advisedly upon such Families, shall see them come dropping in, one after another, late to the Public Worship; and when they are there, sleep oftentimes, even in the morning, or otherwise behave themselves so rudely, as a man may be assured, they neither honour God, nor benefit their Souls by such services; And after, even though they seemed to be attentive and observant, they have learned little or nothing at all; oftentimes have forgotten the very Texts, and the Chapters or Psalms that were read, and can tell nothing at all of what they might have learned; and if they could remember somewhat for the present, yet it is for want of whetting (as the original word is Deut. 6. in the charge given to Govenours of Families toward their children, and so servants) for want of giving or taking account of it, for want of repetition and conference, all is lost, or most of it, and specially all affection is dulled and abated, which had a little edge perhaps by the Public Ordinances: And this most of all, through the diversions of their minds as soon as the Public Ordinances are ended, to sports and play, or to worldly work and business; which must needs succeed, with the most, if they be not determined to Family Duties afterward. In a word, look upon such Families, where the Lords Day is not observed by them within doors, in such divine exercises of devotions before, and specially after, the Public Worship; and there will be found in the most very little sense of Religion, of conscience toward God, or their own Souls. So that we conclude this branch also, [That in as much as Religion cannot certainly stand among all men without Family Worship, the chief solemn sufficient Time, must extend among all men to Family Worship over and above the public, affording space for it, and requiring that it be so employed.] But this is not all yet. XLVII. 3. To solitary worship. The third branch must be added, which concerns Solitary Worship, over and above both the other: The sufficient Time we say, must extend to that also, besides the conjoined worship, public, domestical. To confirm this, our former argument will once more stand in stead, in this sort. [If Religion cannot certainly stand among all man, without a convenient space of Continuance frequently observed for Solitary Worship by a man's self alone, over and above conjoined Worship with others, than the chief solemn Time of Worship must necessarily be determined so largely for the Continuance, as that it may extend to Solitary Worship, besides conjoined Worship. But Religion cannot certainly stand among all men, without a convenient space of Continuance frequently observed for Solitary Worship by a man's self alone, over and above conjoined Worship with others. Ergo, The chief Solemn Time of Worship must necessarily be determined so largely for the continuance, as that it may extend to Solitary Worship, besides conjoined.] The Consequence of this argument, hath strength afforded it from the former confirmations of like Consequences. Yet may it admit this further descant, upon the necessity of the Times being determined, that it may be infallibly observed: Namely, that here there is need of the most peremptory determination of all other: as well, 1. to prevent all unnecessary interruptions, which yet, without this, every man is exceedingly liable unto, and that from all sorts of persons, Superiors, Inferiors, Equals, within doors, and from abroad: they are liable to offer many interruptions and interpose many hindrances, with their hands and even with their tongues, unless both be charmed by a sufficient determination: and every man and woman is liable to admit such interruptions, unnecessarily from others, unless they be themselves forbidden by the tye of such a Determination lying upon them, which even they may be able to plead against the over-pressing importunity of such Interruptors. 2. Also to secure the performance of such necessary Solitary Worship, against the general unwillingness that is in men's hearts against it of all other duties. And this nothing can possibly secure, but a peremptory Determination, awing the conscience, because of the secrecy of the duty, which no man is or can be witness to constantly, nor take steadily an account of; there must be therefore necessarily, a strict Determination of Time for such Solitary Worship; or else infallibly there will be none such constantly observed by the generality of men. The Antecedent, That there is a necessity of a frequent observation of a convenient Continuance for solitary Worship, is proved not only from what was said of its being Morall-Naturall, Chap. 6. but by what was even now argued to evince the necessity of observing Family Worship applied to this; As 1. That experience shows, most men, specially of the inferior sort, servants and children, and the poor that are feign to work hard for their live; and even superiors, if men of trade and well customed, or otherwise if persons of business, All such have but little leisure on the working Days for any solemn solitary Worship. And upon that pretence, we doubt not, but divers Readers have been already grieved, that we have seemed a while ago to urge them to at least, twice every Day, (though Daniel was a man of business enough, and yet he kept himself constantly to his three times a Day, and so did David too, Psal. 55.) Therefore there is unquestionably the more need, that the chief solemn Time, should sufficiently determine a just space for this solitary Worship (besides conjoined▪) to supply somewhat those defects and take away all excuse of want of leisure, from every one. Thus Calvin in the place before cited [To supply the defects of daily meditation, Calvin in Gen. 2. every Seventh Day was peculiarly chosen of God.] 2. A solitary preparation is needful, both for the Family Worship, and for the Public Worship; and without this, neither are like to be reverently performed, or improved. A man's own mind, is the only commander of itself, and if it neglect itself by itself, others conjoined helps will work little upon it. 3. But specially after the Public, or Family Worship, or both (and so between while, if there be space between,) The improvement of the other, mainly, if not wholly, depends upon the solitary Worship a man (or woman) presents alone; in recalling, and working upon their own souls, what they have been conversant in with others; by solitary Meditations and Prayers. No tongue or hand of another can reach their heart to apply home the necessary truths. Neither is it any time so sufficiently done with others speaking, or even with ones own speaking from God, or to God in conjoined prayers (although so, often, a good beginning is made) but still there wants a further application to more inward and particular cases, and more matters, a further preaching over (repeating over) to ones own heart the Doctrines of Faith and Practice, and a further praying them over, out of ones own inmost and secret thoughts poured forth before God. I add, the more fully any one is affected by the Public (or other conjoined) Ordinances, the more they are (and will be) desirous to carry those thoughts alone into the presence of God, and beg of Him to write and imprint them yet more firmly upon their hearts. So fare is the Public Worship from discharging a man from solitary Worship, that we dare be bold to say (and appeal to all experienced consciences for the truth of it) that [That man, or woman, never throughly profited by that Word read or preached, or other Ordinance of God in Public, (or in a Family) which they did not care to think of by themselves alone, with the first free leisure they could have] neither is there a better sign of a true profiting by the Ordinances of God, and the Worship of Him tendered with others, than the riveting the strength of them into the heart by solitary prayers and meditations, without delay. 4. There is also no soul, but if it be observant of itself, will find itself to have need of more knowledge, than the Public Ministry, or any Family Devotions besides do expressly offer to it; and need to be remembered of more things, then are in those performances dilated upon; and so hath need of as much Time as may be, (and as its natural spirits are able to hold out unto) to read the Scriptures, and other godly books; and to consider its own conscience, even in matters perhaps not named (or but named) in all the Ordinances that Day wherein they have joined with others; and so to meditate, and read, and pray, and give thanks, concerning those things, for its necessary edification and comfort. In all which respects, when specially it can have but very little on the Working Days, it hath need of the more on the chief solemn Time, the ordinary Day for God's worship, even the most large Continuance that Nature can afford to give. 5. Add hereunto, That the Solitary Worship a man or woman tenders to God, is, in the nature of it, the most conscientious, and the most undoubtedly godly of all other; as having least of man, (if any thing at all, when it is inwardly performed, without using the voice) to recommend, encourage, or help it. It comes specially from the Spirit of God, and is carried on by the Spirit of God; and in it, if ever, is the soul in Heaven, while it is upon Earth. 6. Insomuch as a man may truly say, that it, of all the rest, is the best character of a Christian, or faithful servant of God; A man may, for want of opportunity, be deprived of the society of others to join with him in public or domestic devotions; and he may by sickness, or by lameness, or the like accidents, be debarred from going to the public worship, and yet be never the less godly, if he supply those wants in personal and solitary devotions constantly: But without the practice of this, (as he hath Time and spirits) he cannot be a Christian, whether he frequent and use conjoined services, or no. 7. Finally, because those conjoined devotions are not certainly possible to all men, a great part of their lives; and may many ways be hindered from time to time; Therefore the sufficient chief Time doth first and originally respect the solitary worship, from which no man can be at any time hindered, being awake, and not in extremity of sickness or pain, which almost takes away all spirits and senses, unless by particular pressing necessities (which are the reservations often mentioned before) and which are many times short; and divers of them admit a great deal of freedom to renew such solitary worship, as tending a sick body, or a child, at home: And but secondarily takes in family-worship, as far as it is possible, (and it is possible to many, to whom public conjoined worship is not possible) and then in the third place, public worship also, as far as it is likewise possible. And so all the three together are included (and to be included) within the extent of the Continuance of this chief solemn Time necessarily and ordinarily sufficient for all men. And so we hope we have sufficiently and fully asserted the first Qualification and Condition formerly laid down concerning the Determination of this chief solemn Time we have in hand. From which, before we pass to the next, let us but in a word remember the Reader to be think himself, whether the Continuance that must be extended to all these various kinds of Worship, Solitary, Domestic, and Public, for all the purposes mentioned in the grounds laid down about them; can be less than a whole Day, how seldom, or how often soever the Revolution be concluded to be. And if so, than we believe we shall find an easier work than hath been imagined, to prove the perpetual sanctity of one whole Day in seven, according to what we say is the substance of the fourth Commandment. But of that more hereafter. XLVIII. The second Qualification We proceed now to the second Condition or Qualification, that we have delivered about this necessary sufficient chief Time to be determined for all men: and that is, [That the proportion in the whole, of Continuance and Frequency joined, is to be no longer, then is certainly necessary for God's honour, and the good of souls, and compatible with the necessary worldly callings of every one of mankind:] that so it may be undoubtedly called, the Necessary Time for all men: (admitting still, even within it, Reservations for present Necessities interrupting) and that no sober Conscience, (however unwilling otherwise to spend such a proportion of Time constantly in Religion, or to allow it to others) can reasonably deny it to be necessary for Religion, or challenge it as injurious to necessary worldly affairs. In this Point we shall not have our Adversaries gainsaying us earnestly, though some of them have spoken sometimes, 1. Confessed. as though the greater part of all our Times were to be given to God in duties of Solemn and Religious worship. Witness one, whole words our margin refers to. What he meant by it, we cannot, Primt. part. 2. c. 7. S. 4. There should be more justice to bestow more days upon God, yea all, etc. N. B. for our parts, tell. But we mean to assert no such thing absolutely, as the state of man is in this world; but the contrary, by reason of God's indulgence of six Days, that is, the greatest part of them ordinarily, with reservations for some Solitary and Family-Worship, at least twice a Day, as we argued before, (and reason good, if God allow reservation for some worldly matters, constantly, out of His one Day, as for meat, and sleep, and for extraordinary occasions also; that there should be reservations for Religion, and His Honour, and the Good of Souls, in the six working Days, both ordinarily, and extraordinarily.) But now we are but in the way to prove that Indulgence of six Days for worldly matters, and Determination of one in seven for Religion: we say then, that the whole proportion (within the revolution of a Week of seven Days, or any other number of Days) is not to be so large, but by just proof it may be demonstrated, that so large a proportion (and no less) is certainly necessary for all men. And the proof of this, in a word, is this, 2. Proved. that hereby men's consciences will be awed with the Determination, as altogether uncontrollable, and their mouths will be stopped, that for shame, (if they have any shame in them) they will not dare to say, that the commandment is a heavy yoke, or a burden really grievous, who ever be the Determiner immediately, God or men, superiors, or ones own vow; And this, if any thing, will help mainly to secure the observation of it, by all, and among all; who else would be perpetually quarrelling and grumbling against it. And so what ever became of the Public Worship, to which they might perhaps be ordinarily awed by the Magistrate, and the Family-Worship also, where the Governor were strict: Yet to be sure they would never be tied to the performance of Solitary Worship; but reject it, as an unreasonable and intolerable imposition, and so much too of either or both the other, as they durst for fear of men, Superiors and Neighbours. We know, that how little so ever be required, by the most undeniable Authority of God Himself, yet every one of mankind will not regard it: but this is yet greatly different, to reject a commandment out of mere profaneness (as they do, any of the rest, and for which their consciences give them many nip now, and will gnaw upon them eternally, if they repent not,) and to reject it, as an unsufferable burden, which the Commandments of God now under the New Testament cannot justly be said to be. And so, what ever Time is pleaded for, as God's Commandment now, we grant and assert, that the proportion of it, as we said, must appear to be undeniable necessary. And accordingly, though in another place we shall more fully argue it, yet here we propound again to the Readers Conscience, this Question, [Whether out of the proportion of seven days, which contain 168. Hours, the waking Time of one day, which is ordinarily with most men, but fourteen or sixteen hours, (or suppose it eighten or twenty, or even the whole twenty four) is too large a proportion for the chief solemn Time for all men, to attend the worship of God, and the good eternal of their own souls and others? And whether such a proportion, at least, is not necessary for all men, to employ, and also compatible certainly with any worldly businesses?] We do not now argue, how it should be distributed between the Continuance and Frequency, (whether all the Continuance to be in one day, or two, or more; or every day to share alike) that we have already done Chap. 8. and shown the whole proportion to be best all on one day; But we say, [Whether less than such a proportion in the whole, can be sufficient for God's Honour and the soul's salvation, or this can be justly excepted against as unnecessary and injurious?] If sober Consciences put but this question home to their own souls; perhaps they will yield us the whole cause, and dispute no further, though they have heretofore. But we go on to a third qualification or condition of our sufficient Time to be determined for all men; that is: XLIX. The third qualification proved. 3. That the distribution of the whole proportion between the Continuance and Frequency, be so wisely ordered, as there be no unsufferable prejudice to men's worldly businesses by too short Continuance, and too great Frequency; and that even the unwilling may be forced to yield to the wisdom (together with the authority) of the determiner in it, and the willing be able to plead for themselves and theirs also against all disputers and gainsayers, that it is necessary to observe this distribution, without variation or alteration. The necessity of this condition may appear partly by what was said of the foregoing qualification, to acquit this chief solemn Time from all aspersion of intolerable burden; which would lie upon it among many, and even all, if it could not be showed not to be prejudicial beyond sufferance to men's worldly occasions by over great Frequency, as well as by too great a proportion in the whole: otherwise they who conceived themselves so grieved by it, would make bold to reject it as no commandment of God; neither could they be blamed, unless there were sufficient ground to convict them of the wisdom of such distribution. And then it had been as good, that no Determination had been made at all; or rather better: For if none at all had been made, a more equal one might now be made; Whereas a Determination supposed to our hands, doth greatly bind our hands from alteration, even to the better. But perhaps this condition needed not have been put in neither, in reference to any danger, that our Antisabbatarians will offend in, in being so injurious to man's worldly occasions; (toward which they are over favourable and partial) at least those of Foreign Churches. But for our own, if they do really intent to charge upon men's consciences all the Church Holidays, (besides the Lords days) according to the strictness of the Canons of the year 1603. and the practice of Ecclesiastical Courts, as oft as any complaints came in that kind, they would indeed be too injurious to men's worldly occasions: and accordingly the people every where (specially in the country) do without any scruple reject them, for the most part; Even let the Minister do what he can, to keep them up in credit, by Prayers, Preaching, and the like; yet they will go to Fairs and Markets, and to Cart often, and do any work, within doors specially, and not so much as come to Church to the public worship, unless they be both altogether at leisure, and have some willingness besides to it. Therefore because we dispute of a chief Time necessary to be observed, being determined, We must put in this, that the Revolutions be not too frequent and too many, so as to bring a remarkable prejudice and burden upon men's worldly businesses, which would make it certain not to be observed, and so render it altogether vain. As also, we insert the mention of this condition, to show how equally we desire to carry ourselves in this controversy, and that we are sensible, as well as others, that men's worldly necessary businesses must not be encroached upon, no more than they may encroach upon the businesses of Religion; which is indeed a main end of the determination we are now arguing about, [To set the limits wisely and equally for the ordinary chief solemn Time for all men, leaving enough for worldly matters, and yet withal determining enough for Religion.] And to this our next qualification, under the term of sufficiency, (as the two foregoing one's under the term of necessity) speaks. L. The fourth qualification the Time determined must be sufcient in regard. Our fourth condition then (or qualification) of the chief ordinary solemn Time to be determined, is [That it must be sufficient: And this sufficiency must be in three regards. 1. Of God's acceptation. 2. Of Souls benefit. 3. Of Consciences security and satisfaction] we suppose there needs not many words to prove this condition to be not only reasonable, but necessary. Every one that speaks of this chief solemn Time of Worship, gives it the term of sufficient, and under that title was our general Argument proving a necessity of such a sufficient Time to be determined. And it may be demonstrated, we think, that that Time is not sufficient, neither can deserve to be so called or counted, that is not sufficient in all these three regards. 1. Of God's acceptation. First, we say, It must be sufficient, (both for the whole of the proportion, and for the wise distribution of it, between the Continuance and Frequency) in regard of God's acceptation, He requiring of all men, generally, and ordinarily, no greater proportion in the whole, not no other distribution of that proportion, than such a determination expresses and concludes: But is graciously pleased, with so much, so often, and accepts it, as a right and orderly service of Him, if accordingly observed and presented. Unless it reaches to this, To what purpose is all, or any thing? What end or use of any determination or observation of Time at all? God hath no need of us, our services, our Time, or any thing; Yet He requires all this, that we present souls and bodies to Him, and this and that solemn service, and observe sufficient Times; It must then be meant of such sufficiency, as He will accept, whose all Time is, and whose we are, and all things. To give Him then determinately, (or determine for His solemn Worship,) less or otherwise then is acceptable to Him, is as good (or as bad) as to give Him nothing at all, to determine no Time at all for His service. We need say no more of this: this being the ultimate and supreme end of all religious services, and so of all determinations for Religion, to please God, and do that which is acceptable to Him. 2. But we must add, 2. The souls benefit. that the sufficiency of this chief solemn Time, must extend to the benefit of men's souls. For as much as God is so gracious toward mankind, and so much intends their good in all the services and Duties He calls them unto; that He accepts of no services as sufficient towards Him, which are not in their nature and degree also sufficient to men's souls, their salvation, by the attainment of necessary knowledge, and answerable spiritual affections. If then the Time determined, for the chief solemn Time for Religion, be not fairly sufficient, in the nature of the ordinary chief Time, for the getting and preserving of knowledge of Religion in all men, and the working and maintaining of all godly affections in them; by the advantage of a just proportion in the whole allotted to it, and a wise distribution of the Continuance specially so, as there may be, upon every revolution, a reasonable space to obtain and confirm knowledge, and to enkindle and augment affections toward God and His Commandment: If this be not sufficiently ordered, the Time cannot be counted sufficient. And here again it must be remembered, N. B. of how stupid and ignorant, and weak, and froward spirits the generality of mankind are; and so need the more Time to learn and be persuaded unto any thing that concerns, even their own spiritual and eternal good: As also how little Time they can generally redeem on the working Days, from their worldly businesses to look effectually after their souls, either in point of knowledge, or of affection; and so again they need the longer Continuance, in a conveniently frequent revolution, to make somewhat of it, when that chief solemn Time comes about; that it may be to them a true spiritual market Day, wherein they furnish themselves with the main of their spiritual provision for their souls, till that day comes about again: that they may not starve, nor pine, and languish for want of sufficient provision. The soul's benefit then being the secondary end of all religious services, and determinations, (and perpetually concurrent with the former of God's acceptation, He doth accept, when the soul is truly and sufficiently benefited, and not otherwise,) The sufficiency of this chief solemn Time for Religion, must of necessity be in regard of the souls being thereby sufficiently provided for. 3. To securing of men's consciences. 3. But the third thing is not to be neglected in the desciphering of the sufficiency of this chief Time: Namely, [That it must be sufficient, (both in the whole of the proportion, and in the wise distribution of it) to secure and satisfy consciences, that may be apt to doubt of either, in reference to God's acceptation, or the good of souls, their own, or others.] We do not say or imagine, that it is possible to satisfy all the scruples, that every conscience (that is weak) may have about the sufficiency of this Time, through the weakness of their judgement, and strength of their affection to Religion: But that the determination ought to be so well grounded, upon religious reasons, for the sufficiency of it, both in regard of God's acceptation and men's salvation, as that there may be a sufficient bottom to settle consciences upon, and a just foundation of arguments to batter down any scruples, and satisfy any doubts about it: there being a certain Rule whereby such Time may be rightly judged sufficient, as the ordinary chief Time, for such purposes. And without this be, we say, the Time ought not to be counted sufficient. For we must not go blindfold in expectation of God's acceptation, or our souls spiritual and eternal benefit: To say, peradventure God will be contented with such a proportion, in the whole, and with such a distribution of it for Continuance and Frequency; and it may be possible, that thus much, so and so ordered, may be sufficient for men's souls: This is a very unsufficient determination, so to grope, as in the dark, and so to go by wild guesses, and put to a venture and hazard the most important and necessary things in the world, God's acceptation of us, and our souls good, which go in separably together. Nay, we say further, that such an uncertainly grounded determination, which a sober conscience cannot find firm footing to rest upon, for its sufficiency; it's not fufficient, neither in regard of God's acceptation, nor of men's salvation. We are not allowed to put either of those upon doubts, and perhaps, and probabilities. Neither hath God been so wanting to His people, to whom He vouchsafes His Word, as that they should be left without all sufficient ground whereon to establish their consciences in point of His acceptation, and their own salvation; and so it must, and may be found in this matter of the determination of the chief solemn Time sufficiently, Rom. 12.1.2. Ephe. 5.10. 2. Pet. 1.10. (those general sentences of presenting our bodies an acceptable Sacrifice; and proving what is acceptable unto the Lord, and what is that good, and perfect, and acceptable will of God; and of giving all diligence to make our calling sure, and many such like, must needs suppose Rules in Scripture to satisfy in these things) accordingly then to the grounds of God's Word, sufficiently to secure and satisfy consciences, (whom grounds of God's Word will satisfy) must this determination be, that we are all this while talking of, of the chief ordinary solemn Time for Religion. And without this, it is not, not is not to be thought sufficient. The 5. and last Qualification, LI. The last qualification. or Condition of this chief Time must not be forgotten, though a few words may suffice for it. [That it is but the chief Time, not the only Time, (and the determination Conclusive, not Exclusive,) and so the sufficiency, not absolute, but respective, together with the other Times determined by God ordinarily for all, (as the daily Times forenoted) and the extraordinary Times which His providence (according to general Rules in His Word) determines to particular persons, or numbers of men, occasionally.] All these together make up the full sufficiency; which is not made up, but by all these. But yet the chief Time (rightly determined upon just grounds, as we shall see in the next Chapter) may, and doth deserve the name, of the ordinary sufficient Time, namely, We say, sufficient, in its kind, Illustrated. for the chief Time. And of its sufficiency, it is to be noted further. 1. That hereby there is no need of the Continuance to be determined to all men, for their daily Frequencies' morning and evening alone, or in Families: But God is content to leave that to their several affections, (according to more general Rules) and to their occasions also: Because there is so solemn a Continuance determined for them upon the chief Days. 2. Again hereby there is also no need of any particular Rules for determining extraordinary Times, to this or that particular person, or business, occasionally. Only for the solemn service of Fasting and Humiliation, there is both special examples seeming at least to determine the season for them, as at the ordination of Ministers, and in instant dangers, as also for the Continuance, not to be less than a whole Day. But for other extraordinary occasions, there is less direction, and more left, as before, to men's particular affections, and conveniencies, and safely enough; because of the strict determination of the Continuance, and Frequency of the ordinary chief solemn Time; which keeps all right and strait in a special manner, (and directs to right affections for particular occasions,) if carefully and conscionably observed. 3. To which we may in the last place add (in a word now, for haply we may be necessitated to say a little more of it hereafter:) The sufficiency of the Continuance of the ordinary chief Time, being rightly and wisely determined and settled; there is no need of an universal, or peremptory determination of this Continuance distributively, between the Solitary Worship, the Family Worship, and the Public Worship: that is, there is no need, [That all men should be bound, to such an exact or strict Continuance, in each of these single.] But so the whole Continuance be shared between all three, and the Public be not so short, as to afford no remarkable space for an affecting, prayer, and preaching, and the like, and so no remarkable benefit to be gotten by it; nor so long as to tire out the spirits, and disappoint those that dwell fare off, of conveniency of return to their family, and solitary, devotions, (besides the regard of bodily necessities) It can hardly be blamed, though some be longer, and some shorter in public, and so in the rest. For as much as God still hath (and so also every ones soul hath) the full Continuance determined, and allotted; which conscionably observed in the varieties of those Duties, may be, and will be ordinarily sufficient for their consciences, and souls good, and so acceptable to God; though sometimes more of the Time be spent in public, and sometimes more in private. And so at last we have done with the proof of the necessity of such a chief solemn Time to be determined, for the necessary and ordinarily sufficient Time for all men. It remains that now in the last place we come to argue, [By whom this determination must be, or may be made?] But for that, the next Chapter is purposely reserved; this having been already drawn out to a more than ordinary length, through the necessary dependence of so many matters contained in it. And yet there is one thing behind for the close of this Chapter. LII. How fare the Law of Nature commands about the Quando, or season. And that is, a brief discourse about the Quando, season, or order of beginning, when once the former determination is Conclusively settled for the Continuance and Frequency of the chief solemn Time. How fare the Law, or light of Nature will guide or command about this, or any general Rules of Scripture. Leaving the question, by whom it also is to be determined, unto the following Chapter, and here only, touching in a few words, (for many will not need about it; It having no such substantial profit, as the Continuance and Frequency, toward Religion, but only accidental, as is needful to be again and again inculcated to our adversaries, who would cast off all that was heretofore determined by God, because this is taken away:) Touching we say, how fare it is necessary that there be any determination strictly and conclusively, of the Quando, season, or order of beginning: that is, for the particular Day, of that number that is determined, for the chief Time of Worship; and even of the beginning of that Day, sooner or later, at evening, or morning, this, or that hour. Now this I shall dispatch in four Propositions. 1. There is a necessity that some particular Day (of such a number determined) be determined before that number can be constantly observed. 2. There is a necessity, that to all that live within the reach one of another, and so may possibly be helps one to another, or hindrances one to another, the same particular Day, of such a number be determined; and so fare at least the same season of beginning the Day, that all may afford convenient help to each other, and none prove hindrances one to the other. 3. It seems most consonant to the Law and light of Nature, and Scripture-reason, that (unless God determine it otherwise Himself) the beginning of the Day should be in the morning, that is after midnight, rather than in the evening before. 4. It seems greatly conducible to the honour of God from all mankind, and to the general Communion of Saints all the world over, that the same particular Day (of such a number) should be determined to all men of the same age, (that is, from Adam to Christ; and the same from Christ to the World's end) all the World over; to observe it, according as that Day gins with them in the Countries where they live and are. LIII. 1. It is necessary that some Day be determined. For the first of these, It may easily be made good, even by this one Consideration; That making the instance in any one number, as suppose one Day in ten be determined; it thence inevitably follows, that the very neglect of determining another particular Day, makes the Determination fall upon the last of the ten: For when all the other nine are slipped over, and none of them determined, the last of the ten avoidable must be observed, the first revolution; and withal remains for ever after determined; unless a new Day be afterward determined by as sufficient authority, as was in the determiner of the number; and then also, without an alteration of the determination of the number, the new determination can only be placed upon one particular Day, namely the first of the ten. And so if it be done by sufficient authority, it may be done without any violation or alteration of the determination of the number at all; For the strength of the determination of the number lies in these things. 1. That there should be but one Day for Religion, to nine for worldly business: and again, but nine for worldly business, to one for Religion, (and neither more nor less either way, ordinarily.) 2. That those nine Days, being the number of working Days, should come all together; and the Day for Religion not come between them; for then sometimes there would be less than nine together, and sometimes more. Now this is observed plainly and undeniably in both respects, in the instanced change from the tenth Day, to the first Day. For in those two Revolutions of twice ten Days, there are but two Days for Religion, the last of the first ten, and the first of the latter ten: and there is twice nine Days for worldly business; and in each Revolution, either number of nine worldly Days are entirely all together, and the Days for Religion come not in to break the number, as they would do, if the second Day were determined; for then there would be one Day for work only, and the next for Religion, and so not nine work-days together: and again, if the ninth Day were determined, then there would have been in that Revolution but eight Days together for work, and a ninth (not a tenth, Objection. according to the determination formerly settled for the number) observed for Religion. If any say, that this would be how ever but for once, and that were no great matter, specially if Religion lose nothing by it, as by bringing the Day sooner, it would not: We answer, It is true, if the authority be sufficient, Answer. to change the number, the matter is not of importance: But if the authority, that would change the order of the particular Day from the tenth to the ninth, or so, (and ever after keep a tenth from that) yet hath not also an authority sufficient to change the number; that one alteration would make them guilty of transgression of a Moral Commandment of God, namely in the point of the number, which even once must not be done by men, under any pretence whatsoever. To apply this now in a word to our business in hand, as God unquestionably determined for the Jews, (and we say, for the old world) the last of the seven; so upon the supposition of one Day in seven, perpetually determined, as we say, in the fourth Commandment: And supposing also that the Church had power, after Christ's resurrection and ascension, to change that Day to another Day of the seven; Yet by this argumentation, they will be found to be determined to the first Day of the Week, and to no other, (whensoever they should make the change) for else, do what they can, they would the first time break the number, which without special allowance they might not do without sin. And so in conclusion it will come to this pass, that it must be acknowledged to be Gods own determination, even by virtue of the number remaining perpetually determined in the fourth Commandment: And so in that sense (supposing the old seventh Day abrogated) we may both truly and properly say, The first Day of the Week (the Lord's day) is determined to us, and must be observed by us, even by virtue of the fourth Commandment: N. B. which is a thing most worthy of a special note, and may perhaps afford a more satisfying reason, why there is no express institution mentioned of the first Day of the Week in the New Testament, then usually hath been thought; Namely, because the virtue of the fourth Commandment doth of itself fall upon that Day, supposing the former void. And no other Day could have been chosen by the Church, (even in the silence of God) without violation, for once, of the fourth Commandment, in the number. For though God, we doubt not, might have altered it to any other Day, and even have wholly altered the number, and taken one of six, or five, or one only of eight, or ten, at His pleasure, whose all Times are, (as we have often said, and desire often to remember:) yet He perpetuating the number, no man, or number of men in the Church could by humane authority determine any other Day for order; but the first, in stead of the last, must succeed; besides the high reason for that Day, from Christ's resurrection, and resting from the work of our Redemption: of which hereafter in due place. Enough of our first Proposition. LIV. 2. The same Day is necessary to them that live together. The second is, [There is a necessity of the same particular Day, and particular beginning of the Day, to all within reach one of another, to prevent mutual hindrances, and secure mutual helps in public, and in families.] Without this there would be nothing but confusion, and God would not be rightly served, jointly, nor certainly by each one solitarily. But still one or other would be interrupting and disappointing those that were near them. A man finds this very often in Family-Worship, on the Weekdays, and in Solitary Worship also, that neighbours, friends, strangers, have come and put him much by; One while delayed his devotions, another while forced him to abridge them, and sometimes even to omit them altogether for that time, through their importunities and businesses. And the like experience a man meets with much more, if he use to set apart a Day any thing often, (whether for himself alone solitarily, or with his family) he shall be divers times interrupted and hindered, & forced to break off, do he what he can, sometimes. All which makes it necessary to have the beginning of the Day, and so the ending of it, and in a word, the whole particular Day, to be the same to all that are within the possibility of helping or hindering one another in Religion, and the services of God, public, domestic, or solitary. And this may serve rationally to answer a difficulty, A difficulty dissolved. supposed to be insuperable, and opposed by the Historian, expressly to overthrow the Lords day; namely, What is to be done by such, who travelling East or West to such Degrees, come to find, that they have lost, or gained a Day in their computation, and so to question what Day they should observe; and accordingly, what beginning of the Day, because the Climates vary so much, that when it is morning in one, it is noon in another, and night in another, and so proportionably, as they travel. The answer may be plainly and briefly this: [That such as travel by Sea, are to observe the Day, and the beginning, as they did when they set forth, (that is, as near as they can, in the morning, as the morning falls out to them:) But if they come to Land, and find, that those to whom they come, are (by the great variation of the Climates through which they are passed) a Day before them, or a Day after them, they are to observe it as those do to whom they come: that so all may mutually help, and none hinder one another.] only by the reason of the former Proposition, it seems fair to affirm that it is necessary for them, if they find the Country to which they come, a Day after them, that they observe their own Day first, and then the next Day, with those of that Country; and so God nor their souls shall be no losers, neither yet their worldly occasions; God's providence having made the change to them for that once, but without prejudice to any thing for which the Number and Day was appointed. And here is indeed no inconvenience, nor any thing to bogle at, by such as count God's service, and the good of their souls, and participation of His Ordinances orderly with others, matters of more consequence than the nicety of Astronomical observations of minutes, and hours, and Climates, and the like. God certainly is not the author of confusion, neither would have his servants in the same Country be divided in their Solemn Times, by the occasion of a long journey that some of them have taken, (though for once it may be with some, as those in a journey at the season of the Passeover, were to keep it that year, the month after; but not so the next year, but with their brethren) And much less may it be imagined, that God sets so light by His Solemn Times, as that such a nicety as this occasional accident (or any other variation of Climates, and long time of Light or the like) should disannul His Commandment about it. Which as often as we read urged in any of our Adversaries books, (as most of our English Antisabbatarians make main matter about the long time of Light in some Countries, as an unanswerable Argument against the Morality of the fourth Commandment for one Day in seven) We confess, we stand amazed at their presumption, so to trifle with God and Religion, and make, as it were, nothing of His service, and of solemn Times for it. But of this more in another place. LV. 3. It is most consonant to Nature, to begin the day in the morning. We proceed to the third Proposition about the beginning of the particular Day; and that is, [It seems most consonant to the Law and Light of Nature, and Scripture reason, that (unless God otherwise determine it himself) the beginning of the Day should be in the morning, that is, after midnight, rather than the evening before.] We put in that Parenthesis, (unless God otherwise determine it himself) As well that we may never, neither by way of consequence, nor so much as in appearance, dispute against any appointment of God: acknowledging everlastingly, that all His determinations, (what ever we may surmise or argue) are wisest and best, so long, and so much, as He will have them stand: As also for that it is commonly taken for an undoubted and undeniable truth, [That the old Jewish Sabbath did begin (and so end) at Evening.] Whether it did so certainly, or no, perhaps we shall consider more particularly hereafter. But for the present, we cannot forbear to say, that we are no way convinced that it ended in the Evening, (though we will not now neither dispute that in point of fact.) But all we will do for the present about it, is to show our grounds, why (under favour of Gods not determining otherwise, as we said) we conceive it most suitable to Religious reason, that the chief solemn Time should not end, till our waking Time ends, or till Midnight: and so consequently, if it must be a whole Day's continuance, (as we suppose it must) the beginning must be at Midnight, The reason of that assertion. and not the Evening before. Our reason is, That if we consider the Evening before, or the Evening after, there will be perpetual danger of encroachment either upon the Religious Time, or the Worldly Time, to the prejudice of one of them; but specially of Religion in most men. 1. Consider the Evening before, In winter time, it is Evening with us at five a clock, a good part of the Time, and at four, for a week or two, or more. If now as soon as it grows dark, the Time for Religion gins; They must, to observe it aright, and have their minds in frame, lay aside their worldly businesses a while at least before; and this will at least seem to encroach too much upon their businesses, and disappoint Markets on the Day before, and Journeys very much sometimes: Or rather the hazard will be, that worldly things will stick to men's fingers, and businesses in their minds, so long, that what with Supper time, and other Night-businesses before they go to bed, and many hasting to bed, under pretence perhaps of earlier rising in the Morning, (though likely enough they mean nothing less, nor do they rise the earlier for it:) God and the soul would have very little, even of those hours, after four or five a clock, (besides what conscientious men use to give Him every night) and so scarce worth the while of reckoning the Religious Time (or Day for it) to begin at Evening, specially considering the great loss that would in all likelihood be by the ending of it at Even; which is the second Consideration. For supposing the Day ended at four, or five, or six a clock: either men would still continue their Religious thoughts, as to close fairly their waking Time with them; and this would be again thought too much, because the former Evening was challenged as God's due, (whether He had it or not,) Or else, which would be infallibly with the most of men, they would instantly, when it grew dark, or at Sunset, (which I take it was the Jews Evening, ending those Days that did end at Even, as the Day of Expiation, Leu. 23.23.) throw away all thoughts of Religion, and fall to work, or buying and selling in shops, or to sports and play: which cannot possibly but be prejudicial to Religion, by weakening the good they had received before in the Day: and even making them lose any godly affections they had gotten, by a cold damp, deading any spiritual heat that might be put into them by the ordinances and services of God, public, or domestic, or solitary, by one, or all. Hereunto we may add, that upon the knowledge of this ending at that hour, there would be beforehand matches made of meeting to make bargains, to game and play, and perhaps to drink and carouse, (the Day being now over) and then even before it were over, the minds of most worldly people would so run upon those things, even while they were in the exercises of devotion, that they will make very little benefit by them; but they will, as it were, sit upon thorns, in the public Ordinances, and rather than fail, go out in the midst of them, if they misdoubt or discern that they are like to trench upon their worldly times. And for this we would but appeal even to sober consciences, when they sometimes hear a Sermon on the Weekdays, after which immediately they have worldly businesses, (or even but a meeting of pleasure) to attend upon; Whether those things do not much run in their heads, and make them sit in pain and fear, and long that it were done; and even tempt them to go out (unless shame hold them) and leave it before the end, or specially before the end of Prayer, Psalm, and Blessing. And then it would be undoubtedly much worse with ordinary people, as appears but too manifestly by their go out both morning and afternoon, as soon as they think the Sermon should end, (the glass being run) or that it is ended, and they hasten to their dinner, or to serve their cattles, or the like. But now by the beginning and ending at Midnight, (or the Morning, which is ordinarily all one) so as one wakes in the Religious Day, and lies down to sleep in it; All the inconvenience on both sides is prevented. Men may follow their businesses the Night before, that they may the less disturb them on the Day for Religion; and their Night-devotions may settle their minds against the next Day: and then on that Day, all the waking Time being determined for Religion, it will plainly secure very much all the good gotten, and keep out all mischievous disappointments by worldly thoughts and discourses; and to settle a man's spirit excellently, by lying down with those thoughts of God and Religion; and so sleeping as in God's arms, may make all singularly happy to him. And if this be so, they are surely not so well advised, that have so ridgedly urged the beginning of the Lords day to be necessarily at Evening, (as they suppose it was with the Jewish Sabbath.) But we have somewhat further to say to them about that, from our Saviour's Resurrection in the Morning. Of which we shall discourse hereafter. LVI. 4. The same day to all mankind, is conducible And now we pass to our fourth and last Proposition, about the particular Day to be determined for the chief solemn Time, namely, [That it seems greatly conducible to the honour of God from all Mankind, and to the general communion of Saints all the world over, that the same particular day (of such a number) should be determined to all men of the same age (that is, from Adam to Christ, and the same from Christ to the world's end) all the world over; to observe it according as the Day gins with them, (sc. from Midnight) in the Countries where they are and live.] 1. To the honour of the one God. That this is so in reference to the Honour of God, may be showed from Gods being One, and so the greater unity and uniformity there is in His Worship, among all His servants in all places of His Dominion, the greater is His Glory. Now all the whole earth is His Dominion, Neither is there any other Lord in the whole World that hath supreme authority over any of mankind, but Himself alone. And therefore, as much as is possible for all His Subjects to join together in worshipping of Him, it cannot be denied, but it is an advancement of His Honour. Now this cannot be in regard of Place; they are too many, and dwell too fare asunder to join together in Place: but in Time they may, namely within the same 24 hours all the World over: how fare distant so ever they be one from another, and though Antipodes one to another; or how many so ever they be in number, yet they may at the same Time, on the same Day Natural, be every one of them every where worshipping God in the most solemn manner, publicly or privately, with others, (as they can have others to join with them in Place) or at least solitarily and alone: And tender to Him not only the same proportions of Time for Continuance and Frequency, the same number of Days, one as well as another, every where, Namely, their waking Times (as was said before) but also the same particular Day, according as the Day falls out with them. Then which of all things, that are any way belonging to the outward Worship of God, there is not any one thing, as we conceive, that can make His Worship more solemn and celebrious: Nor redound more to His Honour; striking all men, that are yet but strangers to Him, (and much more His professed servants) with a marvellous awe of His service, and that none should dare to rob Him of His sacred Time, which He so universally requires of all mankind, not only for Continuance and Frequency, but also for the season and order of the Day, and beginning of the Day. An objection prevented. And if any shall now object that this reason would enforce, (or infer) the same particular Day from the World's beginning, to the World's end; and that there should not be one particular Day, or beginning of the Day, from Adam to Christ; and another particular Day, or beginning of the Day, from Christ to the Day of judgement. To this we answer, First, that we never did, nor never do intent to dispute against God; and therefore whatever we argue for this or that, we mean it never no otherwise than so fare forth as He hath not revealed His will and pleasure to the contrary. And therefore for the particular Day under the old Testament (what ever may be said of the beginning of the Day) it being clearly the will of God that it should then be the last of the Seven; and now under the new Testament the first of the Seven, it is unquestionally the fittest for His Honour, and all things, that it should so be, (besides the particular reasons for the change of the Day to be discoursed of fully in their proper Place hereafter.) But this being said, we answer in the second place, that Gods determining to all mankind, one and the self same Day, from Adam to Christ, (as some of our disputers grant, and some of them deny, and which we doubt not but to prove sufficiently, partly in the next Chapter, and partly in a Chapter express for the antiquity of a Seventh Day Sabbath, and so of that Seventh Day from the Creation;) confirms very fairly, that it is His pleasure it should be so under the new Testament also, neither can we conceive any reason, why it should be otherwise, being as possible now to be observed every where, (when once it is made known to men by the preaching of the Gospel) as it was of old for that Seventh Day; there being such fair reason for it, in reference to God's Honour, as we have said. ●. To the Communion of Saints. The like may be said also, of the Communion of Saints all the World over: which can no way be better, no way so well exercised externally, as by having not only the same number of Days determined to them for the chief Time of Worship, but the same particular Day (and beginning of the Day) as near as is possible, by reason of the variety of the Climates. That as often as that particular Day comes about, every one of them where ever they are, or with whomsoever, do either publicly in congregations, if it may be, It is certain a day ordinary and frequent, is necessary for maintenance of the true Religion and godliness, of union and Christian society, among the faithful, etc. prim. p. 251. see also, p. 59 C. G. Irons. p. 8. or if not that, then in families; or at least in secret, each one in solitary devotions, send up their Prayers, and Praises, and Services together unto the Throne of Grace, remembering one another in those Prayers, and Praises. There is no man will doubt or can question, but if they all were so near together, and voices and ears were proportionable, that all could join together, in one Place, at one Time, it were to be done. That therefore which can be done, in the exercise of the Communion of Saints, seems to be most requisite to be done, Namely that they all have, and observe the same particular Day, even all the World over, for their solemn Time of Worship. And this the rather, because this solemnity so determined and so observed, will be a most lively visible representation of that great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Great Assembly of the Saints and Angels in Heaven, spoken of Heb. 12.22. As if for that Time or Day, the World were turned into Heaven; Or Heaven come down into the World, As Saint john says, he saw the new Jerusalem descending thence. It is true (as hath been more than once touched before) all the World cannot begin and end their solemn Worship, even if they should count the Day to begin at one and the same instant as near as they could, and so some at one hour, and some at another; yet none could tender their solemn Worship, but in their waking Times, which by the diversity of the Meridian's, must needs be divers one from another, according to the distances of Places. But yet they may be truly said to observe the solemn Time, upon that same Day; some beginning a little before others; and so successively one after another, to the end of the 24 hours of that Day, one or other would be still employed in the solemnity of Worship, according to the Day's determination. And so an amends (as we may say) would be made for not beginning all at an instant, in that hereby, the Holy Time, N. B. should be observed actually, and continued in actual services full 24 hours, and so no part of it wholly shrunk up by sleep or other interruptions. For still in one part or other of the World, whole Countries would be in their waking Time, and so in the solemnity of their devotions. For demonstration of this; suppose at such a Place the Day gins an hour before at another (as it is really so, every Day, in point of light, and so of midnight, and noon, and evening, etc.) and this other Place sees Day an hour before another; yet more Westward; and so of the rest (as between Dover and the West of Ireland, they say there is an hour's difference,) Now by that Time the first Place hath begun, and gone on in solemn Worship an hour, the next gins and joins with them, and so the next till it be gone round. So that by the twelft hour, half the World are in their solemn Worship, Public, or Private, And then the other half takes the turn in their order, till the twentifourth hour. There cannot then, we say, be a better way to exercise the Communion of Saints upon earth: Nor is there upon earth imaginable a fuller resemblance of the great and solemn Assembly which is constantly kept in Heaven. And let that be further noted in a Word, that the forementioned respects of Time, Continuance, Frequency, and Season, are not in Heaven distinguishable. For they in Heaven, do keep a constant and everlasting solemn Sabbatisme (as it is called Heb. 4.) whereas we poor snakes on earth, are forced to wait the returns of solemn Times. The reason is, they above have no other work to do; but to serve and Worship God, they are spirits without bodies: we on earth have bodies to care for as well as souls; we have other callings commanded us, to attend on, as well as on God's solemn Worship. But yet it is fit we should as near as we can, conform to them above, which we say, is chiefly, by this joint observance of the same particular, Day and number, and length, all the World over for our chief solemn Times. Whereunto may be added for a conclusion, that otherwise, every sooner all dominion (as there are many, in Germany, and Italy, and other Countries, not subordinate to one Prince or State with their neighbours, but small principalities and free States) might vary the particular Day, were it but to show their liberty; and so such as had occasion to travel among them, would be very often, either forced to break the number determined to all, or else keep within doors upon their own solemn Day, and so want the help of others, and be in danger to be interrupted by others. And so every where upon the borders of Countries this hazard might be. All which is prevented, (and only so) by having all, in all Countries, of the World, the same particular Day, and beginning of it, as we have said. And so we have, at length, dispatched the whole of what we judge considerable about the profit and necessity of solemn Time generally, and of the chief Time for Religion in special Except by whom the determination of this chief Time is to be made, which now follows in the next Chapter. CHAP. X. The Determination of the chief Solemn Time of Worship for all men, necessary and ordinarily sufficient for the chief Time; as also of the particular day for it: belongs not to men, but to God. 1. The question explained. HItherto in the former Chapters, particularly about Time, we have been laying foundations of fortifications, where withal to defend the Perpetuity of the fourth Commandment for a seventh Day Sabbath, and the Divine institution of the Lords Day, the first day of the week for the particular day: and to batter down the opposite Mounts of our adversaries, both Sabbatarians and Antisabbatarians. And as we have built upward, we have planted some Pieces, and discharged them against their works in such fort, as we are persuaded the judicious Reader already discerns them to shake and totter. But now we are about to erect a Principal Tower, which if we can firmly and strongly do: All men will see, that we have sufficiently secured ourselves and our cause from any fear of future assaults from the Antisabbatarian party. And as for the Jewish Sabbatarians, we doubt not but we shall also quit ourselves from them in the latter parts. The matter we propound to be strengthened, is the position, expressed in the title of the Chapter [That the Determination of the chief Solemn Time for all men, necessary and ordinarily sufficient for the chief Time; as also the particular day for it, belongs not to men but to God.] To state this clearly, we must needs repeat a little of our foregoing discourses, and add a few words more for full understanding of it. 1. By the chief Solemn Time, 1. What is meant by chief solemn Time. we mean the Continuance and Frequency jointly, that is, so much at once, so often, and so often so much, Time, to be observed for Religion, God's honour, and the souls good, in Solemn Worship: and that in a convenient large Proportion in the whole, and a convenient large Continuance, for the various kinds of worship, public, domestic, and solitary, and a convement space for serious performance of several duties in each kind; together with a convenient Frequency of Revolution of such continuance: So as no other proportion of Time, is, or can be of Equal profit with this: All other being less large for Continuance remarkably, or remarkably less frequent; and so cannot attain to that substantial profitableness to the general of Religion, that there is in the chief Solemn Time we speak of. 2. By the Determination of this chief solemn Time, 2. What by determination. [Necessary for all men,] we mean, The appointing it so to all men by a law, as that thenceforth, all men that have this law given them, and their posterity to the world's end, are bound in conscience to observe it, and cause as much as lies in them, others also to observe it, as necessary to Religion, so as they sin, that observe not the whole proportion, or that observe it not according to the distribution of the Determination; so much Continuance together in one day, and no less, and that day's Frequency so often returning, and no seldomer, then is expressed in the Determination. Only still admitting a reservation (as we have oft touched before) for necessary worldly occasions, 3. What by ordinarily sufficient ordinary or extraordinary. 3. By the Determination of this chief Solemn Time, [as ordinarily sufficient for the chief Time,] we mean, that the Determination is only conclusive, that no greater proportion in the whole, nor longer Continuance so often, nor oftener so much, need ordinarily be determined or observed by all men for the chief Time of Worship: and not, that this is to be the only time to be observed, (which were to make it an exclusive Determination) or the only Time to be determined, for any of mankind, what occasions so ever may be. But this is sufficient, we say, for the chief Time, in reference 1. To God's acceptation. 2. To the benefit of souls. 3. To sober consciences, 4. How it belongs not to men, but to God. security and satisfaction. 4. By the Determination not belonging to men, but to God, for this chief Time, (as also for the particular day of it,) we mean that all the authority that men have about it, is but declarative and obediential, not legislative or decisive. Men have only to exercise their Wisdoms to find out what Determination God hath made of it in his written word, and how much reason there is to acknowledge the wisdom and graciousness of God's Determinations in all the respects: And not to set their wits a work to find out of themselves, or from any general grounds of nature or Scripture, other Times, as necessary and sufficient for this chief Time for all men, (or any other particular day,) which God hath not appointed. Again the Authority that any of mankind have, (even Princes and Magistrates, the Church Synods, and Counsels,) is only to cause their inferiors (as much as in them lies) to observe, together with themselves, God's determination of these Times, and not to take upon themselves the Authority, of determining any other proportion, Continuance, or Frequency, for the necessary and ordinarily sufficient chief solemn Time, than God hath Determined to their hands already in His holy Scripture. For to God, we say, this Determination, even now belongs, and ever did, since Time was: that is, God, who is undeniably and originally the sovereign Lord of all men and times (of the times of all men) hath reserved to himself, as a parcel of his prerogative royal, from the world's beginning to the world's end, the Determination of the chief solemn Time for all men, necessary and ordinarily sufficient for the chief Time; and of the particular days for it. And accordingly, these are to be found in His writer word, namely an express Determination of the chief solemn Time for Contiunance and Frequency, and a sufficient designation, of the particular days for it, in both ages of the Church. II. The question confirmed. The question thus stated, we shall propound sundry sort of arguments to confirm our position, some against men's authority, whether taken severally, or any number of men together; and some expressly for God's authority. Again, some concerning all the respects of Time together; others concerning the Continuance and Frequency jointly, which make up the chief Time, and that both in reference to the necessity of so much, and so often, and to the sufficiency of it, for the chief Time: others concerning either of those respects in special, the Continuance and the Frequency, and finally, some which refer specially to the particular days. And first we begin to oppugn men's authority generally, III. It belongs not to men to determine it, the first argument, no such authority is given them. and to show that it belongs not to them to determine the chief solemn Time of Worship for all men. Thus we reason [That Authority which neither the law of nature grants unto men, nor the Scripture any where expresses, or gives the least intimation of, is not to be rested on, or believed, in a matter of such importance in Religion, as the Determination of this chief solemn Time is. But neither the law of nature grants, nor the Scripture any where expresses, or gives the least intimation of any such authority granted unto men, to determine the chief solemn Time of Worship. Ergo, Such an authority is not to be rested on or believed, in a matter of such importance in Religion, as this Determination of the chief solemn Time is.] The Major we may easily confirm; 1. Hist. Sab. part 2. pag. 20. From the words of one of themselves in another case [Non credimus, quia non legimus.] But more from the nature of conscience, which can have no other rule or ground in matters of importance, but either the law of nature, or the Scripture, which latter indeed alone is so complete a treasury of all the will of God towards us, as what is not at least insinuated there, is in no wise to be admitted in any matter of importance in Religion, whether of belief or practice: For as much as it contains (at least, we say, by way of insinuation) all that the law or light of nature doth or can say toward Religion; and having expressed many things more, which the light or law of nature is not able to discover or speak to. And therefore a Conscience dares lay no weight upon what the Scripture is wholly silent in, and much less when the law of nature doth not pretend to speak for it neither. Now that this Determination of the chief solemn Time of Worship for all men, is a matter of mainest importance in Religion, we suppose we have abundantly showed in the two former Chapters, beyond the denial of any Conscience; unto which we may briefly add, that it is a thing of singular weight in reference both to superiors, and inferiors; those that may pretend, or offer to make this Determination, or neglect to make it: and those again that obey, it being made by others, or obey it not. For on every hand there is sin unavoidable, if we follow not the will of God revealed in nature, or in His Word. 1. If they take upon them to make this Determination, to whom God hath given no such authority, they grievously sin to usurp upon his Prerogative Royal, or to usurp authority not granted them. 2. If they neglect to make it, to whom God hath granted the Authority, they sin also, in being wanting to so necessary a duty, and business of Religion; or perhaps also to the rectifying the superstitious conceit of those that think it determined by God, when it is not. 3. If those that have Authority, make it too large in the whole proportion, in that they sin, in being over burdensome to men, and rendering the service of God tedious and irksome, and making men to throw it off for the burdensomeness of it, even beyond that proportion, which perhaps they would have been contented to have observed, if it had been more moderately appointed. 4. If they distribute the proportion too unequally, between the Continuance and Frequency, here again they sin, in prejudicing either Religion, by too short continuances, or too seldom revolution; or worldly businesses over much, by too frequent revolutions specially: which again will redound to the prejudice of Religion, as before. 5. If they make the proportion, too scanty in the whole, they sin unquestionably, against Religion, God's honour, and the souls good. 6. If they find a Determination made by others, wisely, they sin if they offer to alter it any way, that is, to the worse. 7. If they find it unfitly made in any respect, they sin if they altar it not, for the better. And the reason is the like for those that are to obey the Determination, they sin if they ascribe Authority, and yield obedience to those to whom God hath given none; and they sin on the other hand, if they deny Authority unto those to whom God hath given it, or if they deny their obedience, specially in a matter so nearly concerning God's honour, and the good of their souls. (Besides what is to be said of the proportion, or distribution appearing equal, or notoriously unequal, of which anon.) So that in all this, there is nothing for the consciences of all sorts of men, that meddle, or meddle not with this Determination, obey it, or obey it not, to rest upon: but a certain Authority to be pleaded from the law of nature or Scripture for those that offer to make it, or obey it. Or a certainty, that men have no such Authority left them by God. And that our minor expresses, which we believe we shall sufficiently confirm. 1. For the Law of Nature; we have already noted. 1. IU. Neither by the law of nature. That originally God is unquestionably the Sovereign and absolute Lord of all Time, and so that it primarily belongs to Him to determine the chief and necessary Times of His own Worship. 2. That the Law and light of Nature doth not determine, nor cannot help men to determine Conclusively the Continuance and Frequency jointly, and so not the chief solemn Time of Worship for all men. 3. And this is both confessed (and urged against the fourth Commandment, being Morall-Naturall for a Seventh Day Sabbath) by all our adversaries that dispute about these things. From all which it plainly follows, that the Law of Nature doth not, nor cannot grant unto men the authority of determining this chief Time of Worship necessary for all men: But rather denies it them: As being a thing against the light of Nature, that they should have the authority of determining that which they have no light in Nature for the porportion of. 2. For the Scripture, there is as little for this authority there, V. Nor by the Scripture. as in Nature, for we challenge our adversaries or any for them, to to produce the Book, Chapter, or verse, of the Bible, that gives any so much as an intimation, that God hath put off this authority to men, which was originally a part of His own Prerogative Royal. Is it any where said, in express Words, or to any such effect, [That God, though He determined the Times of His Worship to His Church of old, yet He will not do so to His Church now, under the New Testament. Or that He will not have any one of His Ancient determinations to stand in force in any respect, But, though it be still as necessary as ever to have solemn Times determined for Religion unto all men, specially a chief Time, to be ordinarily sufficient, yet He utterly refuses to meddle any more in determining, or distributing the proportions of it, but leaves it wholly to men, they may and shall, and must determine it.] Is there we say, any the least intimation, of Gods putting this authority out of His own hands into men's, in the New Testament? Or any thing like it, of His not meddling with determining any Times to mankind, till He had brought Israel out of Egypt: But that Adam, notwithstanding the contrary intimation (to say the least of it now, which we shall particularly discuss hereafter) Gen. 2. was wholly left without any determination from God, for any solemn Times; and so all the Patriarches, Noah, and Abraham, and the rest, till Moses his Time, and till the fall of Manna. Is it any where said, or any reason of it to be gathered from Nature or Scripture, that these had the whole authority, of determining this necessary chief solemn Time for all men, or that any else had it of mankind. Some must have it, God still, or men, We refer it then unto any conscience to judge, whether it is fit to say or believe, without any Scripture, or Reason, that God, to whom it originally belonged, and whose Honour and Service it so mainly concerned, (besides His care of men's souls) did put it over to men, we knew not to whom? nor why? All that can be pretended, is, that some of our adversaries say, that there is no mention of Adam or the Patriarches, keeping the Seventh Day Sabbath. No more say we, is there of their keeping any sufficient Time, any such, chief Time, as is proved and confessed, to be necessary to be determined, and observed for Religion. We now argue not of the proportion, but who determined it, determined it was, being so necessary to Religion for all men. And it originally belonged to God. Let them then that list or dare, believe, without the Scripture, and against the light of Nature, that He put it over to men: We dare not. And this may suffice for our first, and general Argument. For as for that which is alleged for the Church's Authority now under the New Testment. We shall come to consider it in the prosecution of our second Argument, which is this. [If God have given to men this Authority to determine the chief solemn Time of Worship for all men, VI 2. Argum. this Authority is given. necessary and ordinarily sufficient for the chief Time: Then either He hath given it to every man single, or to some special men for all the rest: But He hath not given this Authority to every man single, nor to some special men for all the rest. Ergo, He hath not given this Authority to men at all.] The Consequence of this Argument is most clear, and cannot be denied. The Antecedent hath divers branches in sight, and more that will appear anon, we must consider them severally and distinctly. 1. For this Authority to be given to every man single, 1. Neither to every man single. to determine the chief solemn Time, necessary, and ordinarily sufficient for Himself, It will, we doubt not, sound so unreasonable in every ear at the first, that sundry Readers will be ready to blame us, as wasting of Time unnecessarily in the very mention of it, and much more in going about to disprove it. Yet for all that, we cannot but take notice that some of our disputers, though we verily believe they mean no such thing, as to assert it, (but reserve the Authority to the Church, the Governors of it, as they abundantly proclaim:) Yet sometimes speak very suspiciously towards it. Thus speaks one of them [" The equity of the reason (in the fourth Commandment) is, that if a man, Prim. part. 2. c. 7. Sect. 4. have many days for his own work, It is reasonable He (mark it, He) consecrate one among many for God's service.] And again in another place [The Commandment obliges us always, to appoint an ordinary Day for God's service.] And is not the Commandment in that sense Moral to all men? Therefore it commands all men to appoint a Day, that is, every man for himself: (of which more by and by.) Not much unlike another, [He sins, C. D. that doth not separate some Time for God.] And the great Schooleman, in the place formerly cited, seems to speak this language also [It is Moral (saith he) that man should depute some Time of his life for the service of God.] Which seems to imply, that it belongs to every man single. And if any man wonder, how such learned men, should let fall such Exotic sentences (and so contrary even to their own assertions, other where, of the Church's authority herein:) We desire such to take notice, that for any thing we can see, our Adversaries own grounds do necessitate them to speak thus, and to believe so too, if they understand themselves: Which that we may evince, and withal prosecute our Argument above, against them; we propound this Confirmation of our Antecedent generally. VII. This is proved absurd, by [If in reason it be necessary, that the authority being left to man to determine the chief Time of Worship, it should be given to every man single; and yet that be absurd: then the authority is not left to every man single, nor yet to some special men for all the rest. But it is necessary in reason, that the authority being left to man, it should be to every man single: yet that is absurd, that it should be so left. Ergo, The authority is not left to every man single, nor yet to any special number of men for all the rest.] The Consequence again needs no proving. The Antecedent requires a double confirmation, as having two members: whereof the first is, [That it is necessary in reason, that the authority of determining the chief solemn Time being left to men, it should be left to every one single.] This may be cleared, by considering, that the observation of such a Time being necessary to all men, at least to be employed in Solitary Worship, if they cannot have the opportunity of Domestic and Public Worship also, as hath been proved before in the foregoing Chapter: This cannot certainly be observed by all men, unless every one have power and authority in himself single, to determine it for himself, in case others will not, or do not. And it is undeniably certain, that in many places in the world there are none to determine to others a sufficient solemn Time for the worship of God; as in all Pagan Countries: In those places therefore, either men must have authority to determine for themselves sufficient Time single, or they shall have none determined to them: and so it shall be left to the will of other men, whether they shall attend upon God, and the care of their own souls, sufficiently. Ob. If any would say, that such may attend upon God, and the care of their own souls sufficiently, without any antecedent determination of their own, or others. 1. This hath been already showed to be false (for the generality of mankind) by their being liable to so many interruptions from worldly businesses; particularly, being servants, and under the authority of others, and even from their want of steady wisdom to allot, without an antecedent determination, sufficient Times for Religion. 2. Besides, that this perverts the state of the Question; for we are now supposing, a determination must be made, (the authority is left to some men, or else it is still in God's hands, and His determinations already made must stand, that is, some of them.) It must not then be answered, that any may sufficiently observe Time for God, without a determination. It remains therefore, that Time being to be observed, and determined that it may be observed, even a chief and sufficient Time for Continuance and Frequency both jointly, and that for all men; It must be left to all men severally, if to men at all, that so (at least in the neglect of others) God nor their souls may not want their sufficient Times determined. And this is enough for the first member of the Antecedent. 2. The second is, [That it is absurd, VIII. 1. The importance of it. it should be left to every man single, the authority to determine the chief solemn Time of Worship, necessary and sufficient, for himself:] may be demonstrated, 1. By laying together, 1. the unwillingness that is in the most to be bound to, or by any determination of such necessary and sufficient Time for Religion: unwillingness to observe it, even though themselves deny not Gods express determination. 2. The interruptions manifold, that many are liable to, by reason of worldly affairs; and even their not being masters of their own Time; as is specially the case of servants, children, wives. 3. And the want of wisdom in all sorts, to judge of the necessity and sufficiency aright. All these, we say, laid together, will give assurance, that if it were left to every man single, in most men it would be all one, as to suppose it not at all necessary to have any determination of such sufficient Time: For there would be no hopes of any at all, or any to any purpose. And these three would be sure to be laid together in the minds of very many of mankind, as thus. 1. Their own unwillingness would make them backward to determine any Times at all, specially when no man could show them out of the Scripture, that God had given them any such express command to make such determination to themselves. 2. They would think themselves a great deal the more excused, or excusable, being servants or inferiors, and so not masters of their own Time; and their superiors not so much as allowing them to make any such determinations of Time, nor scarce to observe any; as would be, and is the case of thousands and thousands. And if men now dispute, that the Israelites were bound to no Sabbath in Egypt; and that the Commandment is not given to servants; because of the inconvenience of sufferings, and the necessity of obeying masters, commanding work, (though we shall refute these sufficiently in due time:) much more would servants, and such persons under subjection think themselves not tied to observe any considerable proportions of Times as necessary, and much less determine any to themselves, which would bring such hazards upon themselves, and the Scripture being so silent in bidding them determine any such Times, as it is plain it is; and having determined none to them, as is supposed and said by our Disputers. 3. All this would be much more strong in their conceit, and hinder them for any such sufficient determination (or observation) by their want of wisdom, and want of a rule, to determine the sufficient and necessary Time by: They will think, that if it were the will of God to have us determine for ourselves any necessary and sufficient Times (the observation of which will be so prejudicial and hazardous to us) He would have given us a rule to go by, and not put us to trouble, and danger of sufferings, in a business where we must grope in the dark, and know not whether we go too fast, or too slow, determine too much, or too little at once, too often, or too seldom. (And this want of wisdom, and want of a rule, is a most convincing argument that God hath not left it at all to men, as we shall show expressly anon.) And what any of our Adversaries, or any other could plead against such a man's allegations, that this determination, for these reasons, was not, nor is not left to him for himself; but either there is to be none, or some other have the authority, (or rather God himself still:) We know not what to imagine, in such silence of the Scripture in it; nor how they could urge his conscience, and convince him of sin, upon their Tenets, for not determining, or even not observing such sufficient Times. Let them consider it. The same also would be the case with manifold Superiors, unwilling to observe Times for Religion, and being men of much worldly employments; and having no clear rule to go by, what is necessary, or what sufficient. The issue would infallibly be, that they would never determine any Time to themselves at all, or never sufficient Times. It cannot then be imagined, that God should, upon these terms, leave the authority to determine the necessary and sufficient Times for His Worship, and Religion, to every man single. Let us sum up this proof of our Antecedent in this branch, in the ensuing Syllogism: [That which supposes God to leave a thing of exceeding importance in Religion, to the consciences and judgements of every unconscionable man to determine, is not to be credited or admitted. But to say, that God hath given the authority to every man single to determine for himself the necessary and sufficient Times of Worship, is to leave a thing of exceeding importance in Religion, to the consciences and judgements of every unconscionable man to determine. Ergo, That He hath given them any such authority, is not to be credited nor admitted.] The Major is certain, as well because, 1. No Instance can be given of any other matter of like nature so left to every man's conscience to determine. 2. As also because it seems a formal contradiction, [That any thing of exceeding importance in Religion, should be left to the conscience and judgement of any man to determine, much less of every man for himself, (specially when it were so certain, that nothing would be done by the most, or nothing to any purpose) It being the nature of Religion, to be a binder of men's consciences.] The Minor cannot be denied, by that which hath been often discoursed of the importance and necessity of such determination for Religion: and by the undeniable unconscionableness of many, even of the most of men. The Conclusion than will follow, [That God hath not left it to every man single.] 2. We add a second proof hereof, IX. 2. Their manifold interruptions. from the hindrances that the most willing and conscionable man that could be, would inevitably meet with, to the exceeding prejudice of his devotions, even though he were not a servant, or such a like inferior; but much more, if he were. In that again, for want of express proof of the authority given him to determine his own Time, and for want of a clear rule to measure his proportions of necessary and sufficient by; he would infallibly & unavoidably be so interrupted & checked in and for his observations, which he could not justify by a particular rational plea, that he would often be even forced to intermit and omit his determined Times; and even in those that he did observe, be often unquiet in his mind and spirit: sometimes doubting he observed not enough, and sometimes perhaps too much, and so too seldom, or too often; and even on unseasonable Days, (as they would often prove by men's interruptions and businesses) And by all, miss of much good, and of much comfort which he might have had, in despite of all men, if these Times had been unquestionably determined by God himself to him. A Syllogism shall close this: [That which supposes God to leave a thing to His servants to determine, of which their determination will be with less honour to Himself, less good to their souls, less comfort to their consciences then if Himself had determined it for them; is not to be credited or admitted without express Scripture for it. But to say, God hath left to every man single the determination of his own necessary and sufficient Times for Religion, is to suppose (and that without express Scripture) that He hath left to His servants to determine a thing, of which their determination will be with less honour to Himself, less good to their souls, less comfort to their consciences, then if Himself had determined it for them. Ergo, without express Scripture for it, (which is not to be found) it is not to be credited or admitted, That God hath left this determination to every man single.] There needs, we conceive, no further words of this proof. We have yet one more: X. 3. The impossibility of agreement. 3. Which is taken from what we have formerly proved, That [It is necessary for all that dwell near one another, and within the reach of helping or hindering one another, That they be all bound by one and the same determination for Continuance and Frequency jointly.] And even for the particular Day, and beginning of the Day, so far as to secure the help, and prevent the hindrance of each other. And withal, that it is very conducible to the honour of God from all mankind, and to the exercise of the Communion of Saints all the world over, [That all men should have the same determinations for Continuance and Frequency, and even for the same particular Day (as near as may be) all the world over.] Whence we frame this Syllogism: [That which supposes it extremely improbable, if not altogether impossible, That either God should be generally honoured by all mankind on the same days, and in like proportions; or the communion of Saints exercised so as it might be among all God's people all the world over; or even that the help of those that are near one another should be secured, and the hindrance prevented, is not to be credited or admitted. But to say that God hath left to every man single the determination of the necessary sufficient Time for Religion, of even of the particular day for it, is to suppose such an improbability, or even impossibility, Ergo.] The Major hath been confirmed before. The Minor is easily cleared. For how can it be imagined with any probability, or even possibility, [That every man having these Determinations left to him, all men every where will agree upon that same Continuance, Frequency, and particular day for Worship?] In what one thing do all men in all parts of the world agree, that is any way contrary to corrupted nature, as this determination of necessary and sufficient Time is: that is, contrary to the wills and carnal affections of men? Nay we need not travel so far for this, as all over the world. Take but any one country, city, village, house, and let it be but once known, that [None hath authority over another to determine times to him, but that it is left to every single man for himself:] And it cannot reasonably be hoped, that there would be a complete agreement in the same Proportions, Continuance, and Frequency, or the same particular days constantly. Some out of frowardness, because they would not join with such or such, and would not have them join with themselves, would have their days and times by themselves. Others out of mere profaneness, would shift and shuffle the times and days, that they might overslip as much as they could. Others through covetousness and worldly mindedness, love of pleasures, and the like, would not think it fit to determine themselves long before hand, or to a constant proportion, or day: as not knowing what worldly occasions they might have, which they had rather attend upon (though of no necessity) then upon Religion. And specially, when by others being also left to their own determinations, they could not be certain, whether they should be interrupted by their coming to visit them, or trade or traffic with them. And so by the shift, besides great neglect of Domestic and Solitary Worship, there would be in many places, even where Christianity were professed, no Public Worship, at all: or at least, many would never come to it at all; or not in any constancy. And so this (together with the forenoted hindrances of the willing, by the interruptions of the untoward) would fill all places with nothing but confusion and irreligion. And therefore cannot be supposed to be so left by God. XI. Except. 1. answered. If any man shall now object against all this kind of argumentation generally, as unsufficient: because even though it be granted that God Himself hath fully determined all the times in question, yet the unwilling will still be untoward and neglectful, and men will still interrupt and hinder one another; Sol. and so the same inconveniences will remain that are alleged. We answer, That it is one thing to have irreligion be among men for want of a law, by leaving them to themselves to make laws, in matter of greatest concernment, in Religion; and another thing to have irreligion be among them, that will not be obedient to a law made for them. The former we conceive altogether contrary to God's honour, His holiness, and justice, and revelation of His will, and law in His word. The other we know to be permitted in His providence, and out of which He will fetch Himself honour, and vindicate His holiness and justice, even according to His truth, the truth of His threaten (added to the transgressions forbidden by His law:) in His due and apppointed Time. 2 Pet. 2.9. XII. Except. 2. and Except. 3. answered. If it be further objected, that [to many nations, God hath certainly not declared any particular law concerning the Times of His Worship:] As also that whereas we speak so much, and so often of the good of men's souls toward their eternal salvation, requiring such a determination (and observation) of sufficient times for Religion: This were to no purpose, even were it revealed to many nations in the world, who have not the knowledge of Jesus Christ, without which there is no salvation. We answer: Sol. 1 He shown His word unto jacob, His statutes and His Ordinances unto Israel, He hath not dealt so with any nation, and as for His judgements they have not known them. Psal. 147. God hath not revealed Jesus Christ to many Nations, Yet that is unquestionably necessary to salvation, and was revealed to Adam and Noah: But their posterity generally lost it, and God revived it not unto most of them. And so (though in a fare different degree, and even kind of necessary) was it with the Sabbath, the chief Time of Worship. Also many Nations whose Ancestors had the Gospel preached to them, and all the Precepts of the New Testament, now have them no more, which yet are necessary to God's Honour, and the good and salvation of men's souls. 1. To the first of these. No more hath He many other particular laws, which yet were and are His Commandments undoubtedly, both in the New Testament, and in the Old, and specially in the matters that concern His Worship, His Ordinances for His service. 2. Yet these He undoubtedly declared to Adam after his fall to communicate to his posterity, and afterwards to Noah for his posterity, before and after the flood; And when the succeeding generations, growing wicked, lost and forgot them, or corrupted them: He in justice left the greatest part of them without divers particular Laws belonging to His Worship, (and even some belonging to the second Table, in divers Countries) and among the rest, that of the chief solemn Times of His Worship. For. 3. It may be fairly answered, that to such as were corrupted so fare, as to Worship plurality of gods against the first Commandment; and make and Worship Images against the second, and their whole Religion, was superstition and wilworship in a manner: There was no proper use of the particular express Law for the chief solemn Time of God's appointment: which being to be kept to God's Honour, and not to the Honour of Idols, God did not vouchsafe to revive among them particularly, that particular Law; which they had profaned, if they had observed it to their Idols. And this apprehension we have the Prophet Ezekiel for our instructor in, who in the name of God, complains of the Jews, for profaning His Sabbaths, as well as defiling His Sanctuary, in that the same Day (that is, on the Sabbath) when they had slain their children to their Idols, they came the same Day into God's Sanctuary, into God's House. Ezekiell 23.38, 39 See, how God accounts, worshipping of Idols a profaning of His Sabbaths, when done upon that Day. N. B. Therefore we need no longer wonder, that God also never reproves the Gentiles by His Prophets, for not observing the Sabbath, which some of our Adversaries think to be a demonstration, that the Sabbath was not given to Adam, neither concerned the Gentiles at all, but was peculiar to the Jews, because (they say) the Gentiles are reproved for other sins, but not for not observing the Sabbath. They were not, we say, reproved for not observing it, because to have observed it to their idols, and the honour, and worship of false gods, had been to have profaned it, as Ezekiel hath told us. Therefore also they are not reproved for not observing any times at all; Yet doubtless many of them were so Atheistical and irreligious, as they observed not the times of their own Superstition: Yet to observe some times, our adversaries (and all men) confess, is [absolutely Moral Natural, and bound all the Gentiles in all ages. But because they observed not those, they did observe, unto the honour of the true God, but of Idols, therefore we say they are never reproved for any neglect or inobservation of Times at all. But on the otherside, when God mentions by His Prophet Esay, Chap. 56. [The son of the stranger joining himself to the Lord,] He again, and again calls such to the observation of the Sabbath, with most ample promises, as a most essential part of Religion, and most necessary to every Servant of God. A Law then from God Himself, is most necessary for His Honour, and for Religion, concerning the chief Time for His Worship. Though to those Nations that have cast off His true Worship, He hath not particularly revived it, not having given them His written Word. Sol. 2 2. To the other objection, concerning the good of men's souls, 1. We say not, that the observation of the Sabbath, or any sufficient Times in Duties of Religion, will save men's souls, or benefit men's souls, without the revelation and Faith of Christ. 2. But we say, that a Law from God Himself concerning a Sabbath, or the necessary and sufficient chief Time for Religion, is necessary unto every man, as a Moral means towards the attainment of salvation, and the good eternal of men's souls, as well as towards the right honouring of God. And therefore God hath not put over the making of such a Law unto men, whether Christ be revealed to them, or not revealed to them: neither to every man for himself single, or to any special men, or number of men for all the rest. XIII. Nor 2. is this Authority given to some special men for the rest. And now having proved this sufficiently enough, concerning it's not being put over to every man single (and we suppose not too prolixly, considering how we argued withal, that if it belong to men, it must belong to every man single; And our largeness about this may stand us instead an on also;) We proceed to the second main branch, of our second Argument: Namely, [That God hath not given Authority to any special men, or number of men, to determine the chief Time of His Worship, for all men.] This question is disputable in three several distinctions of Time, or Ages of the World: The first we make, for this matter, from Adam, to the mention of the Sabbath to Israel, Exod. 16. The second from thence, to the making void of all the Jewish Days, the particular Seventh Day Sabbath and all; by the Resurrection of Christ, and preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles: The third from the making void of the old Seventh Day Sabbath to our Times, and so to Christ's second coming. And in each of these Periods of Times, Two sorts of Persons are generally considerable, 1. Those that were out of the Church, by the revolt of their Ancestors from God's Covenant made with Adam after his fall (intimated Gen. 3.15.) Namely, Cain and his posterity, and those that fell off to them, Gen. 6. and those of Noah's posterity, that fell from the Covenant renewed with him, and Sem, (according to the intimations of Gen. 9) Namely, the race of Cham, and even of Japhet, and Sem also, the most of them turning Idolaters, (as is said even of Abraham and his progenitors, before God called him, Jos. 24.2.) and so the greatest part of the World remained, and doth remain out of the Church, and Covenant of God to this Day, 2. In all ages from Adam, even until now, God hath had a Church; some (though at Times very few) He renewed His Covenant with, and made them His peculiar servants: And so were outwardly the whole Nation of the Jews, the seed of Israel, particularly from their coming out of Egypt, till the destruction of Jerusalem, after their rejection of Christ their promised Messiah. And ever since, and a while before, He hath had a Church, chief out of the Gentiles, who have received His Gospel, and the Faith of Christ; Now we are to take a view of both these sorts of men, the Pagans (so lets us for distinction sake call the former sort) and the Church, in the three Periods of Time forenoted. In all three of them it is controverted concerning the Pagans, what sufficient Times they were obliged unto, or are, and by what Law, by whose determination. And for the Church or servants of God, in the first, and the last; for in the middlemost, it is beyond all peradventure, that God determined the Time to the Jews, and left it not to them: But yet even during that Time, because there might be, and doubtless were in some part or other of the World, still some few servants of God among the Gentiles, It will be justly questionable; by whose Authority the determination of the necessary and sufficient Times was made even for them where ever they were, and what proportion soever was determined, though never so small a Continuance and seldom revolution. These things thus premised, we thus propound our Aurgument, [against any special men having this Authority for all the rest.] XIV. If so, then either to Pagans, or to the Church. [If God have given it, (now or heretofore) to some special men for all the rest of mankind, Then either to some special men among the Pagans for all within their Countries; and to the Church for all their known members: Or to the Church generally for all mankind, both the members of it, and all others. But neither hath God given this Authority to some special men among the Pagans, for all within their Countries, and to the Church for all their known members: Nor yet to the Church generally for all mankind, both its members and all others. Ergo, He hath not given it to some special men for all the rest of mankind.] The Consequence is undeniable, the enumeration being sufficient. The Antecedent hath three branches considerable. In the scanning of which we will begin with the first, and next take the third, and leave the second to the last Place. Which will appear to be the convenientest method of proving them; though the Argument could not so well be contrived in that order. XV. 1. Not to Pagans: This is proved absurd. First, than we reason against this Authority being left to any special men among the Pagans, in any Age of the World, whether Governors of Families, of Towns, or Countries, or Kingdoms. [That they should have in their hands the determination of the necessary and sufficient Times for Religion, for themselves, and all under their Authority.] And we say, that God Himself did determine it to Adam, and so to his posterity, and that the losing it among the Pagans, doth not acquit them from sin, (though their sin be but of ignorance) in not observing it still. And that they have not, nor had not any power to determine the sufficient Time, having lost the knowledge of God's determination. And so for any servants of God in those Paganish places, that they were not to expect the determination of the sufficient Times for God's Worship, and their souls good; from their Paganish Superiors: But that God Himself did vouchsafe it to them by revelation, or by His Word after it was written, and His determinations therein expressed; and that to those only they were to hold. And now against the Paganish Authority thus we dispute. 1. XVI. 1. By the importance. By an Argument formerly used [That which supposes God to leave a thing of exceeding importance in Religion, to the consciences and judgements, of men devoid of conscience, or true knowledge of God, to determine, not only for themselves, but for all that are under them, is not to be credited or admitted. But to say that God hath given to any Pagan Governors' Authority to determine the sufficient Time of His Worship, is to suppose that He hath left a thing of exceeding importance in Religion to the consciences and judgements of men devoid of conscience and true knowledge of God, to determine not only for themselves, but for all under them. Ergo, That God hath left this Authority to Pagan Governors is not to be credited or admitted.] Both the propositions of this Argument have been formerly confirmed, Only there is a clause in this, which being illustrated, will make it of much greater force. And that is, (The determining the sufficient Time of Worship, for all those that are under them.) Concerning which, letting pass the consideration of their Paganish inferiors; let us put the case (as it is the case really at this Day with sundry Christian Captives among the Pirates of Algiers) of any servant of God, living in a Paganish Country, and under the tyranny of an infidel Master or Governor. Can it be supposed, that such are bound to serve God and attend solemnly on Him, even in solitary Worship, (no other being to be had) and take care solemnly of their own souls good; no other Time then their infidel and Pagan Masters and Governors determine to them? Nay, we say rather, are they free and at liberty to attend on God and their souls no other Time, than what their Infidel and Pagan-governours' determinations allow them? (As suppose Joseph, sold to Potiphar, and afterward the Jaylours' servant in the prison.) They know themselves bound to serve their Masters and Governors in all worldly service, and bodily work, and labour, every Day, and all the Day long, except the necessary Times of natural refreshing, by sleep, and eating, and the like; and the Times that must be tendered to God, (and for their souls good) in solemn Religious worship. Now if there be no such determination of any sufficient Time for Religion to them, but only according to the pleasure of their ungodly superiors: Is not this a bondage worse than all the residue of their outward bondage? That though they have never so great desire to wait solemnly upon God, they can have no sufficient Time for it? Or though their souls need it never so much, (as they cannot, without miracle, but need it extremely, where specially they have never any help from any public or domestic worship, but all their good and comfort must come from solitary worship) yet they cannot be allowed it? Because God, upon this supposition of putting it over to their Pagan and profane masters, hath in effect debarred them from taking any (and much more from determining any) to themselves, without their Pagan-Superiors allowance. And if they should offer it, they might be challenged with disobedience, for not working continually, every Day, and all Day long, (as much as their natural spirits could hold to) at their Superiors command: and might be urged with better reason, than Pharaoh did the Israelites, Exod. 5. [You are idle, you are idle; therefore you say, let us go & sacrifice unto the Lord our God] For they had God's express command to warrant them: and Pharaoh could not gainsay it, though he would not obey it. But here Pagan-Superiors have the full advantage of them, and have the Law (in a manner) wholly in their own hands, as having authority to command in all things, even this not excepted; Because God hath put over this authority of determination expressly of the Time sufficient for His worship, to them. Now, unless we can imagine, that God will so far ratify this supposed authority of Pagan Governors in this matter, as to accept as sufficient for His honour, and bless as sufficient for His servants souls, any pittance of Time that they shall allow and determine, or rather which His servants can redeem in any breathing times that they afford them in natural respects; and so make any the least proportion sufficient: how can we say that God hath left the Determination of this sufficient Time to Pagan Governors? But we add further, we must not admit the state of the Question to be varied: We propound the present Dispute about the detetmination of this sufficient Time, to whom it belongs; as supposing it must of necessity be determined to Religion. Because therefore, it is not to be believed, that Pagan-Governours will make this determination for their inferiors which are Gods servants, (as experience also shows in places where Christians are now slaves) this determination must belong to some other then to them. And we before gave some Reasons, why single men should not have this authority to themselves, whereof one was (which is specially appliable to this case) [That it would be less honour to God, less good to their Souls, less comfort to their Consciences, then of God himself should determine it for them.] For in the case in hand, if the determination were Gods own, they might have more confidence to plead it to their Pagan-superiors; and hopes, by their faithfulness and diligence at other times, to obtain liberty to observe it: Or if they could not, yet they might comfortably suffer for it, in refusing any work contrary to it, [Suffering according to the will of God, they might (as S. Peter speaks, 1 Ep. 4. ult. who, we verily believe, includes this case in that sentence) commit their souls (and lives and all) unto Him in well-doing, as unto a faithful Creator.] Whereas if they had no express determination from God, they could not so plead His Honour: And they would be apt, for the saving of their skins and bodies, to neglect their souls often, having no certainty what they ought to observe, but their own conceits, and determinations upon it: and so their comfort, both in waiting on God, and following their Superiors work, and in suffering, or scaping, would be wavering and disturbed; in that they would be perplexed with manifold distracting doubts, whether they had determined too much, or too little Time for attending on God and their souls, too often, or too seldom: or even perhaps whether the particular Days were, or could be seasonably determined or observed conveniently. A Conscience, that must venture, and suffer for a practice, is in a miserable condition, if it have no certainty that God requires what it doth, and forbids what it forbears. And on the other side, the necessities of the soul, and its eternal state, to be above all worldly things regarded, (and manifold sentences in the Scriptures to that effect) and Gods honour and service to be preferred before men's, and before any thing that can concern one's self; will never suffer any Conscience to be at peace, that observes not sufficient Time for Religion constantly. And both together show there had need be another authority determining it, than their own, which, we say, can be no other but Gods. How our Adversaries will, or can satisfy themselves or others about this Case, we do not well conceive. Somewhat it is that they offer to say towards it, which we will here briefly touch, because we shall be forced to consider their sentences again elsewhere. XVII. Some Exceptions to this answered. 1. One while they tell us, that the fourth Commandment is Morall-Naturall, only for Public Worship. 2. Another while, some of them say, that the Commandment is not given to servants, (and so by consequence, not to any that are not Lords and Masters of their own Time, in respect of men, as children, wives, and any inferiors set to work by superior authority of Governors.) 3. And some again say, that Christians in Pagan Countries ought to keep the Sunday, as having been appointed by the Christian Church. A little for present answer to each of these. The two first directly pervert the state of the Question, and affirm no determination, no observation lying upon their consciences, who are under others authority, unless their superiors have determined Times for them, and Times for public worship: But our Question supposes, that sufficient Times are to be determined for all men, by one or other, and that for solitary worship, where there is or can be no public. 2. For this also we have proved to be Morall-Naturall, and necessary to Religion, that there be such determinations of sufficient Time for all men. 3. Even themselves, at times and by fits, make it Morall-Naturall in the fourth Commandment, to have (and observe) sufficient Times determined. 4. And is it now a manifest contradiction, to say, a Commandment is Morall-Naturall, that is, necessary to all men: and yet, that if there be no public worship, a man is free? (as one of them expressly speaks.) Can the neglect of others free me from a Moral Commandment totally? We say totally; for they make this public worship the whole Morality of the fourth Commandment. Again, is there any other Commandment of the Decalogue, from which any man can at any time be said to be totally free? Father or Mother may die; But there are other superiors still alive (or even inferiors) to whom the fifth Commandment continually binds to afford some honour, and so of the rest. Again, Moral Natural is by themselves described to be universal and perpetual. How is this so, if the command extend to no more, but that which is neither universal nor perpetual? Not universal, because not to servants at all, if their Master's order otherwise; and will not let them forbear work? Not perpetual, when there may, all the Time he is in such a Country, a Captive, be no public worship, with in his reach. But such contradictions men must needs run into, that leave the roade-way of the Scriptures, the King's high way, the way of God's Commandments (the Royal Law, as Saint james calls it, jam. 2.9.) to follow the by-paths of their own, or other men's devisings. And as for that one of them says [That because Sunday hath been established & used in the Christian Church for aday of divine service, Prim. a man (namely in a pagan country) ought to apply himself privately to religious exercises with greater assiduity then on other days.] We desire him to satisfy us, whether by the words, (he ought) he means, that he ought in conscience, as a necessary duty of Religion, he ought in obedience to the Moral Natural law of God, for having and observing a determinate Time, to do thus, though his Pagan Governor, Master, or Prince, forbidden him; and to keep him from it, set him all day long to some hard bodily labour, and that from week to week, allowing him neither that day, not any other for his devotions and private exercises of Religion? If he say, no, this is not his meaning, as not thinking it reasonable to put a poor captive to venture upon the rage of his profane Master, or Governor: Then his answer is but a collusion, and nothing at all to the purpose of our case. If he say, yes, he ought to do so, and venture to suffer for it (though not the whole of the day, but only some part of it;) we reply 1. Who shall determine how much of the day? If he will take but our Church's Homily of the place and Time of Prayer, he will find the whole day called for; If the Canons of 1603. there is little less. If he take but even the practice of any Christian Church in the World, even during the Public Worship: Yet 2. this is more than he shall be allowed by his Pagan Superiors, and so must resolve to endure sufferings (even to extremity perhaps) for it. And in this case, is not here a very goodly ground of encouragement to suffer upon? The Church's establishment, or usage of a day? Whereas when we urge the Commandment of God, it is usually by our disputers thought most unreasonable to lay such a yoke upon poor Christian captives. And therefore, we remember not that they ever durst any of them to put any conscience upon sufferings, in their way, for their sufficient Time, or even their Public Worship Moral Natural, and the Church's determination of either. But we must needs profess for our parts, that we dare do no other; for a weekly Sabbath and the Lords day particularly as determined by God. And whatever they think of this hazard or choice, and that our Doctrine thrusts such poor captives into miserable straits, [That either they must sin against God in breaking the Sabbath, or provoke their ungodly superiors desperately against them by keeping to it:] We cannot but say, that we esteem such captives happy rather, that have the doctrine of the Sabbath in their hearts, to warrant their sufferings; much more than such, who, according to their opinion, should think, they were bound, (by their captivity and the Command of obeying their Governors, though Pagans and profane,) to keep no fourth Commandment at all, no Sabbath at all, nor ordinarily sufficient Time for God's Solemn Worship, even solitarily, and the taking special care of their own souls good. And if ever it should be our lot to be so captivated, we hope we should bless God, for His command of the Sabbath, and comfortably bear witness to the truth of it, (even before those that are altogether strangers and enemies to God and His true Religion and Worship:) as well as to any other part of the Truth, and Word, and Commandment of God. And again, that this Commandment of His, were incomparably more advantageous to our comforts, then if the determination of the Time were left either to ourselves, or to the Church. Suffering for God's Commands, gives assurance of encouragement and comfort, in suffering to bear a soul out; as all His servants have found, (and even the Maccabees did for refusing to eat Swine's flesh, while that Commandment stood in force, though but ceremonial,) But to suffer for the Church's determination in any thing (specially being out of her precincts, and in an Infidel Country, of which we shall say a word more anon) as it hath no peculiar promise to it. So we remember not any credible example of those that have done so among Orthodox Christians, or much less any, that have had any spiritual comfort in so suffering. We expect therefore, of our disputers, XVIII. The adverse party pressed. or the next for them that shall undertake the defence of their cause, which of the forenamed sentences they will stand to 1. Either that the morality of the fourth Commandment is only for Public Worship, and for Solemn Time, but consequently for it; and then a resolution how this can be called a Moral Natural Commandment: which is not, not can be possible, for so many of mankind to observe? Or whether this be not a formal contradiction, that any man is totally f●re from a Moral Natural Commandment. 2. Or that the Morality is for a sufficient Time to be determined by men? and then by whom? Whether by the Pagan Governors in their Countries? and if they do it not, then by whom; whether by a poor captive, for himself? Or the Church Christian for him? And in both cases, whether be may and must venture upon all the rage of his cruel and ungodly Master for it. 3. Or if in neither of these (as we conceive not any great pleasure they can take in asserting any of them) whether then (as Master Broad hath already dared to do) they will venture to lay the fourth Commandment wholly level, and raze it out of the number of the moral commandments, making no more a decalogue, but an Ennealogue, no more ten, but nine Commandments, and some of them speak suspiciously enough that way, though yet for shame or fear they dare not speak out? And if so, yet then again, whither they will admit no necessity neither of any sufficient Time to be determined for God's Worship and men's souls (how little, and how seldom soever) and how Religion can (except by miracle or extraordinary divine dispensation) possibly stand without it? 4. If they will have such a determination still, under what command it comes? Who must make it? and 5. Finally what the poor captived Christian, shall do, or may, or must do, when his barbarous, and tyrannous Master, will not allow him to keep any such sufficient proportion, what ever it be? If the Lords day may be but conscionably observed, till they give the world a rational answer to these necessary questions, we suppose we shall need trouble ourselves no more to dispute for it, whilst we live. A second argument we have (suitable also to a former) against Pagan Governors, XIX. 2. The impossibility of agreement. having this authority to determine the times of Gods Solemn Worship, that is, [There is no probability or possibility, that the several Pagan Governors, will agree in the same proportion, number, and length of times, or of the same particular day, neither among themselves, nor with the Christian Church] Which yet we have argued greatly conducible to the honour of God for all mankind, all the world over; and the general exercise of the communion of Saints. This we will only prosecute, by putting one question to our adversaries (and so to the Judgement of the Christian reader) concerning the particular day: (suppose the number and continuance, were agreed on.) And that is, suppose the Great Turk, or Governor of Algiers, or the King of Persia, who are all Mahometans, would offer to any Christians within their Territories, liberty to Worship God one day in a week, only they would determine them for the day, to Friday, which is the day appointed by mahomet, and observed by all that profess the Mahometan religion (we will not instance in Saturday, which is the day observed by the Jews still, because our adversaries would say perhaps that this day being rejected of God, might not of all others be taken up again: at least for fear of breeding superstition again in men toward it as necessary: But we instance in Friday, a day not forbidden by God any where, no more than not commanded:) Will they now say, that Christians, whether Captives, or others inhabiting those countries, might lawfully, or must necessarily accept and observe that day, and relinquish the Lords day? This they must say, if even the particular day be but left to the determination of Pagan Governors; And if they would say, that the Church Christian having determined the Lords day, it may not be relinquished at the command of a Pagan Prince, we ask again, will they put such Christians then upon the necessity of extreme sufferings, for such a circumstance, as they usually make this day to be? God not having determined it in His Word, as they say; if they say yes, Pagan Governors in this case are to be obeyed, (even with thanks for allowing the liberty of any day so frequently;) and the particular day not to be made a matter of persecution without cause, and without profit. We desire them to consider, how a sober conscience reading the story of the Apostles observing of the first day of the week (the Lord's day) for the day of public meeting, and with an intimation, of the general meeting, and the Sacrament deferred till that day, Act. 20.7. And again reading the intimation of an Apostolical precept for that day; and express mention of observation of it for collection for the poor, (which was wont to be in the public meeting, or aft●● 1 Cor. 16.2. and again the title of the Lords day given to it by the Holy Ghost (Rev. 1.10.) as a day for the Lords Honour, His day by way of possession (as the word Lords is a plain possessive term, belonging to the Lord) expounded by the Church in the next Age, and ever since (till this quarrelling age, which denies all things) to be meant of that first day of the week, observed from that Time to this by the Christian Church; we say how a sober Christian, reading all this in God's word, dares let this day go, and make the Lords day a common work-day, and entertain another, invented by a mere man? Even by such a wicked devilish Impostor as Mahomet, the veriest villain, one of them that ever lived in the world: If they shall say, that this day of Mahomet's invention is to be abhorred indeed, in token of detestation of his impiety: but some other day might be yielded to. We reply. 1. That still than Christians must suffer for that nicety of a day. 2. That it is scarcely imaginable that any Pagan Governor would allow any other day, than what they observed themselves; for the first would be double against their profit, in that, 1. they could not have their servants labour, when they were at leisure to join with them, and over look them; and when they were absent, they would fear their work would be done but untowardly. 2. Besides, that whosoever observe a day, doth it in some reference to their own Religion, and so would rather tie them to that, then let them have another, specially 3. When they might be able to tell them (out of our adversaries suppositions) that their Religion, their Scriptures did not determine them to any particular day; but left it to their Governors to determine; And so still they must observe a day, invented by wicked men. 3. However, what day soever they took up, a sober conscience would (we think) shrink to throw away the Lords day at a Pagans command. Let this we say, be considered. We on the other side being persuaded, that God hath not only determined us to one day in seven by the fourth Commandment, but to the Lords day, for the particular day, by those designations of His word: as also that in this day (& this only) the number was exactly preserved, of one Day a Sabbath, & six Days work, even at the very Time of the change of the Day (as we shown in the former Chapter) and that by this means God may have the same Day all the World over, des other Arguments (of which in their due Place) We, we say, upon this persuasion, can answer the question readily, that we must hold to this particular Day, the first Day of the week, the Lords day, and no other, whoever commands or forbids, offers or threatens. For that Gods will must stand and be obeyed, before men's, against men's, and He must be trusted, to maintain us (our souls at least, which is enough, and the most we can be assured of in a hundred other cases) in maintaining His Ordinances and appointments. XX. 3. They know of no such authority. We have yet one Argument more to urge against this Authority of Infidel and Pagan-governours', for the sufficient Time for Religion, and the particular Days for it. [If Pagan-governours' have this Authority put into their hands by God, Then it is reasonable they should know that this Authority is committed to them. But Pagan-governours' (so fare as we remember in any story) never knew of any such Authority committed to them. Ergo, It is not probable that any such Authority is put over to them.] The consequence of this Argument may be confirmed: by the necessity of a determination to be made, (proved and confessed to be Moral Natural.) And that it cannot be imagined such Princes should take this upon them, and exercise this Authority, unless they have some knowledge or persuasion, that this Authority belongs to them. The Antecedent may also be fairly argued, from the silence of all books in this point: For though we know that Pagan Princes and states did appoint some days extraordinarily, yet we find not that they did so ordinarily, nor ever thought they might do so. But what was done in this kind, was from Oracles (or pretences of Oracles) of their gods, by their priests, or otherwise. And the greatest flatterers of Pagan Princes, never did (that we remember) ascribe this Authority to them, as given them by their gods. It were wonderful then, that we Christians should find out this Authority given by God to Pagan Princes, of which (as we said before) there is not the least word, nor intimation; nor shadow of any such thing in Scripture; and the Law of Nature also is sufficiently clear against it. We conclude then, here the Authority is not, and yet upon divers suppositions of our Adversaries touched already, and to be touched hereafter, here it must be, or no where, among men, for those that live in Pagan Countries. For to come to the other sort of men— That is, the Church of God, Of which we say, as before, XXI. 2. Not to the Church for all mankind. [God hath not given to it, the Authority of determining the chief solemn Time, necessary and ordinarily sufficient for the chief Time, unto all mankind.] Mankind in reference to the Church is again distinguishable, into Pagans, and Members of the Church. Of the latter fort we shall dispute more at large, of the former, a few words may suffice: which yet added to the former discourses, will carry the Cause clearly and undeniably, [That it being Moral Natural to all men, to have, and observe a sufficient Time determined for Religion, This determination, doth not, nor cannot, belong to men, but to God himself.] Thus we reason, concerning Pagans. [If the Church universal hath no Authority but ever her own Members, Then the Authority of determining the necessary and sufficient Time for Religion, unto all men belongs not to the Church. But the Church universal hath no Authority but over her own Members. Ergo, The Authority of determining this Time, unto all men, belongs not to the Church.] The Consequence of this Argument cannot be denied, Unless any would offer to say, that all mankind are Members of the Church universal; which is most absurd. The Antecedent is easily proved, As well. 1. The Apostle denies any such Authority to be in the Church of [judging those that are without, 1 Cor. 5.] And if they cannot judge them, than not determine any thing to them: For this and that Authority go together, in things determinable by the Church; Though the Church may judge, in things wherein it may not determine (in the sense we now take determination) that is, the Church may censure, which is the judging there meant, offenders against God's Law, as the incestuous Person spoken of. But it may not determine that to be incest which God hath not made so, nor determine any to be lawful (or dispense with it) when God hath forbidden it, however presumptuous the Church of Rome hath been in both. It is less than to determine and make Laws, then to judge and censure offenders. The Church therefore having no power of censure, of those without, those that are not her Members, can have no power to determine any thing unto them. They, who are out of the Church, are already in as bad a condition, as the Church's censure can make them, that can but deliver them to Satan, and Satan undeniably hath them already. The Church's Authority is apparently, but the Authority of a mother, now a mother, as a mother, hath no Authority over children, not her own. 2. As also, because it is, and would be extremely derogatory to the Authority God hath given to Princes, Parents, Masters, though Pagans; that any other men should have (or be said or thought to have) Authority to take away their subjects, children, servants, from their work, under pretence of Religion, so many hours in a Day, or Days, in a Week, Month or Year. If God will do it Himself (as we say He hath) there is no just ground of gainsaying, But for men to do it, specially who can show no Title of any such Authority committed to them, in their great Charter, of the holy Scriptures over Pagans, how unreasonable is it to maintain? Therefore the Church hath no such Authority to determine Time for all men. And in conclusion there is none among mankind found, that have this Authority, for all men (for Pagans particularly) not every man single, not Pagan-governours', for all under them: not the Church, for all men. Ergo, It belongs not to men, but to God. And here if we did stop, we suppose, upon the former proofs (and confession) of such a Time Moral Natural, necessary to be determined for all men, and to be observed by all men for Religion; That we have carried our Cause against all gainsaying. XXII. Arguments against the Church having authority to determine the chief Time for all its members. But because our Adversaries, mainly build their conceits upon the Church's Authority over her own, Members. And of this they mainly dispute, and so do we, We will encounter them there also. And doubt not to prove, what we have before asserted, [That the Church hath not this Authority given her by God, no not over her own Members, to determine to them the chief Time of Worship, necessary and ordinarily sufficient for the chief Time.] Our Arguments for this are divers. We begin with one general one, bordering upon our foregoing proofs, and resting in part on them; Argum. 1. [If the Scripture contain the determination of God at least for all mankind that are out of the Church, Then God hath not left that determination of this Time, unto the Church for its Members: But the Scripture contains the determination of God at least for all mankind, that are out of the Church. Ergo, God hath not left the determination of this Time unto the Church for its Members.] The consequence, we conceive to be certain; For that the Scriptures are principally written to be Rules and Laws to the Church; and so if they contain any Laws for all the residue of mankind, then much more shall the same Laws extend to them, and bind them. Many Laws given to the Church in Scripture did not bind the rest of mankind absolutely, that is, not till they entered into the Church, and so into the Covenant of God. They were not bound to the Passeover, (nor admitted to it) till they yielded themselves, and all their males to be circumcised: And no law commanded strangers to take circumcision upon them. Cornelius the Centurion did not, though a man that feared God, Acts 10.11. And it is generally held, that the Ceremonials and Judicials delivered particularly to Israel by Moses, (and not to other men before) bond only the Church of the Jews, and willing Proselytes to them: But no man ever said yet, [That the Laws expressed in Scripture, binding all the rest of Mankind, left the Church free, and bond not them: or that any one Law did so.] The Consequence than is cleared. The Antecedent we take also to be undeniable upon the grounds laid: namely, [That the determination of this Time was not left to man, to every man single, or any number of men for all the rest: and so being to be made of necessity to Religion, by some or other, it was made by God.] And if made by God, than either 1. in Nature, (which we have also disproved, and shown, even with our Adversaries consent, who urge the same to serve their own turn, That the Law of Nature doth not make this determination:) Or else, 2. in Scripture; which than we say was, and is, Gen. 2. to Adam, and to all his posterity, all mankind after him. And who will, or can deny it to be expressed, Gen. 2. if it were made to Adam? Or else, 3. men must fly to, we know not what, wild imaginations, of some revelations, no man can tell when, nor of what, to Cain and his apostatising posterity, and so to the rest of Adam's posterity which fell away from the Church, (which continued chief in the race of Seth) and again afterward a new revelation to Cha● and his posterity, and the rest of Noah's posterity, who revolted from the Church, and remained out of it: Revelations, we say, to these, of a determination made by God, of a proportion of Time, that even they were to observe: though no man can guess any thing, what, or how, or when this was. Which is so Exotic a fancy, (having so plain a story as Gen. 2. before our eyes) as we suppose no man would believe himself, if he should offer to affirm it: and much less hope that any other would believe him, that believes the book of Genesis to be the word of God. To that then, we must have recourse to know what Time God originally required of, and determined unto all mankind; though revolting afterward from the Church most of them, and so neglecting and forgetting it, He vouchsafed not again to revive it to them particularly, for the reasons we gave but awhile since. And so this Time given to them for the chief solemn Time necessary and sufficient, was also given to the Church, (who were also Adam's posterity) or rather it was first given to the Church, in which at first outwardly all Adam's posterity were, till they revolted: and so still remains to the Church. As also that Time is still the Time which all the rest of mankind stand bound to, to this day, though now they know nothing of it. XXIII. An objection answered. If it be objected, That this Argument will prove indeed, that the Time mentioned Gen. 2. was determined to Adam, and all the Church under the Old Testament: But not that it remains God's determination under the New Testament: because with the determination of the chief solemn Time for Continuance and Frequency, namely, one whole Day in seven, to make up the chief Time necessary and sufficient for all men; there was also unquestionably determined withal the particular Day, the seventh Day from the first Creation: and we do not urge that particular Day upon the Church; and therefore no more may we the other determination of one Day in seven for the chief Time. We answer briefly, 1. We deny not, but the Pagans, those that are out of the Church, and so know nothing of the change of that particular Day, stand bound still to that particular Day, as well as to one Day in seven. 2. But yet we deny that Christians do so; because they know, (and can show) Gods express repeal in His Word; in the New Testament, of that particular Day; (we say, of that particular Day, but not of the Continuance and Frequency of one Day in seven for the chief Time) Of which we have already intimated fair Reasons some; and shall handle it fully in its proper place. And withal they find a designation in God's word, in the New Testament, of a new Day to Christians: which Day also, by the former Arguments, of the Determinations belonging to God; and not to men; the Pagans, those that are yet out of the Church, are bound to yield to, as soon as they know it out of God's word. And therefore, 3. Also that Church, that hath the Word particularly written for them, are bound to the determinations therein expressed; both for the chief Time necessary and sufficient for Continuance and Frequency, which is one whole Day in seven, according to the fourth Commandment: and for the particular Day, which is the first Day of the week, the Lords Day, according to the New Testament. We proceed to another Argument. And come more pressely to oppose the Church's authority in this Determination. XXIV. A caution premised. And if herein we shall seem by some Arguments to shake the authority the Church is esteemed to have in other things, or to favour the authority which is challenged by some to belong to particular Churches or Congregations. We desire not to be mistaken. For as we shall argue nothing upon this occasion, but what we esteem to be both true, and necessary to secure fully this mainest concernment of Religion, about the Determination of this chief Time for God's honour, and the good of all men's souls: So to prevent all causeless suspicions, we profess beforehand, fully and freely, 1. That we neither take the authority of the Church to reside chief in particular Congregations, (though somewhat more, we believe, belongs to the Ministers of particular Congregations, than they have in some places been suffered to exercise) much less that all the people have the rule in their hands, as the Separatists say; and least of all, to take in women also, as the Anabaptists do. Though in the point in controversy, we must needs assert the authority to determine this chief Time for Religion, rather to belong to every particular Church or Congregation for themselves, then to any superior Governments or Governors to determine it for them; As we have already argued, that it rather belongs to every man and woman single for themselves, then to any number of men for all the rest. Therefore again we profess, that in those matters wherein the Church hath authority, the authority is in the Church-governors, not in the whole body; and greater authority in superior Governments, as in Synods Provincial and Nationall, together with the authority of the Christian Magistrate; most of all in General Counsels, (or such a Council as is of many Christian Nations together) called by the consent of Christian Princes and States. 2. That we are persuaded, the Governors of the Church have some authority, even legislative, in some matters (as far as the Scripture-rules admit) namely, [That all things be done to edification, and decently, and in order, and with charity, and which may make for peace:] that is, in matters indifferent (as they are commonly called) in things wherein God hath not determined this way, or that way precisely; and so are matters of smaller concernment, which may admit of variation in divers Churches at the same time, and in the same Church at divers times; and wherein the main concernments of Religion, God's honour, and the souls good, or even men's outward bodily necessities are not prejudiced: as they may be on either hand, undeniably, by an unnecessary or unsufficient determination of the Time we are speaking of. These things thus cautioned, we proceed to our Arguments, which will be numerous, and we suppose weighty, every one of them: whereby we shall evince both the falseness of our Adversaries assertion of the Church's authority in this matter: as also discover unto the observant Reader, how negligently and carelessly they have hitherto handled this point about the determination of this necessary-sufficient-chiefe Time for Religion by the Church's authority; as if they had had to do with men that would take their dictates for oracles, and never require satisfaction in most important difficulties, which attend their Positions and Conclusions. Our next Argument is this. XXV. Arg. 2. The Church cannot make Time necessary to Religion. [If the Church have authority to determine unto its members the necessary and ordinarily sufficient chief Time for Religion, than it hath authority to make that Time necessary to Religion, by virtue of its determination, which was not necessary before us determination. But the Church hath not authority to make that Time necessary to Religion by virtue of its determination, which was not necessary before us determination. Ergo, the Church hath not authority to determine to its members the necessary ordinarily sufficient and chief Time for Religion.] The Consequence cannot justly be rejected: For the authority we are disputing about, is a legislative authority, and that concerning a Time necessary for Religion: which authority God had unquestionably in His hands of old; and whatsoever Time He determined, was necessary unto Religion, even by virtue of His determination. Now we say, we are disputing of this authority, Whether this be put over to the Church, or not, because such a determination must be (as we have showed) of a Time necessary unto Religion: Therefore if the Church have the authority to determine this Time, (to make this determination) It hath authority to make that necessary by virtue of its determination, which before its determination was not necessary. For if it were necessary before, than the Church doth not make the determination, or exercise a legislative authority; but only do a prudential act, or ministerial, to declare and preach to its members, what Time God, in Nature or Scripture, hath made necessary; not determining, we say, any thing, by virtue of any authority given to it in that case. The Antecedent is no less certain divers ways. 1. Because, if the Church could make a Time necessary, which was not before necessary by virtue of its determination; than it could make any Time it should determine, necessary by virtue of its determination, (for, A quatenus ad omus valet consequentia) the authority, To the purpose of this Antecedent, See hereafter a distinct Argument proving those Times only necessary to Religion, which G●d himself appoints. Sect. 62. and so the virtue of it, being the same in one as in another: And then not only one whole Day in a Week (which is so burdensome to our Adversaries even to think of) should be necessary, if the Church should determine it; but even two whole Days in a Week, or three whole Days; two whole Days still together, or three, or any other proportion or number that they should think good to determine, should be necessary to Religion: which all men would confess to be absurd. Therefore it remains, that the Church cannot make a Time necessary to Religion by virtue of its determination, which was not necessary before. 2. To make a thing necessary to Religion, which was not before necessary, is to have power upon the Conscience: But the Church hath no power upon the Conscience, to make Laws, and impose them upon men's Consciences: Ergo, the Church cannot make a thing necessary to Religion, which was not before necessary; and so not make Time necessary. 3. The Church's authority, generally is acknowledged, not to extend beyond things indifferent: But to make a thing, or Time, necessary to Religion, which before was not necessary, is to go beyond the limits of things indifferent. Ergo, the Church's authority extends not, to make a Time necessary to Religion, which before was not necessary: and so not to meddle with determining this necessary chief Time, which must be determined for Religion. XXVI. Argument third. The Church cannot make Time ordinarily sufficient to Religion. A third argument follows parallel to this [If the Church have authority to determine to its members the necessary, and ordinarily sufficient chief Solemn Time for Religion; than it hath authority to make that Time, ordinarily sufficient, for the chief Time for Religion, by virtue of its determination, which before its determination, was not sufficient. But the Church hath no authority to make, by virtue of its determination, that Time sufficient ordinarily for the chief Time for Religion, which before its determination was not sufficient. Ergo, the Church hath no authority to determine to its members, the necessary and ordinarily sufficient chief Time for Religion.] The consequence is again clear from the former grounds. We are now arguing about a sufficient Time to be determined, ordinarily sufficient, 1. for God's honour, in His approbation and acceptance; 2. Sufficient for men's souls, in God's blessing: And 3. Sufficient for sober consciences satisfaction, in reference to a just ground of persuasion of both the former. Now God had of old in His hands, authority unquestionable to determine such a sufficient Time; and to make any Time sufficient, so far as His determination intended it; even by virtue of His determination of it. And, we are, we say, disputing now: whether this authority be put over to the Church or not? Because such a determination, must still be (as we have also showed) of a chief Time, sufficient unto Religion; that is, ordinarily sufficient, and for the chief Time, in all the forenoted regards. Therefore if the Church have authority to determine this chief Time, (to make this determination,) it hath authority to make that Time sufficient by virtue of its determination, which before was not sufficient. For if it were sufficient before, than the Church doth not properly make the determination, but only declare it; It doth not exercise any legislative act but only prudential and ministerial; It only preaches to its members what Times God in nature or Scripture hath made sufficient: not determining any thing decisively, by virtue of any authority given it in the case. The Antecedent is also again divers ways confirmed. 1. Because if the Church could make a Time sufficient unto Religion by virtue of its authority or determination, which before was not sufficient; than it could make any Time, that it should determine, sufficient by virtue of the same authority and determination; (for again A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia;) the authority, and so the virtue of it, being the same in one determination, as in another. And then one hour in a week, or two hours in a Month, or in a year, or any other proportion or number, would be sufficient unto Religion, if the Church should so determine it. But this also, cannot be denied to be most absurd. Therefore it remains that the Church cannot make a Time sufficient unto Religion, by virtue of its authority and determination, which was not sufficient before. 2. To make a Time sufficient to God's honour, in His acceptation, is His own Royal Prerogative: according to his own expression of His approbation. But this He hath not communicated to the Church in any thing whatsoever, Of God's blessing required to make the Time sufficient, see afterward a distinct proof. Sect. 71. for the main and chief part of it. And therefore not in this matter, hath he given the Church authority; having no where confined His approbation to the Church's determination. 3. To make a thing sufficient to the souls of men in God's blessing, is also a peculiar of His Almighty grace. And He hath not given the Church power, to convey in any other thing, His Heavenly Grace, at their pleasure. And therefore not in this matter of Time. 4. The Church's authority (as we said before) is generally acknowledged not to reach beyond things indifferent. But to make a Time sufficient for Religion, which before was not sufficient, exceeds the limits of things indifferent. Ergo, the Church hath no such authority. 5. To make a thing sufficient to satisfy sober consciences, in reference to a just ground of persuasion of God's acceptation and blessing, there can be no less than an impossibility of error, in the determining the proportion, and the distribution of it, between the Continuance and Frequency. But this God hath no where promised to the Church in any matter (that is, to no number of men, outwardly professing themselves to be the Church) except only to the Apostles. Neither do our Adversaries in this point so much as pretend an impossibility of the Churches erring, (as appears even by their arguing that the Church may alter the determination, after it is made.) Therefore we say again, and conclude, that the Church's determination or authority cannot make a Time, which before was not sufficient, to be sufficient to satisfy any sober conscience; and so no way sufficient for Religion. XXVII. An Exception answered. We are not ignorant, that to both these foregoing Arguments about the necessity and sufficiency of this chief Time, there may be some kind of Answer made out of the Adversaries books: Namely, that they argue not, that the Church hath authority to determine so excessively much, or so remarkably little. But they come, for the Frequency, towards one Day in seven, and sometimes almost home to it, saying, it must not be less than one in seven. Only they still keep aloof off in the point of Continuance, which yet (as hath been oft noted, and hath need to be oft repeated and remembered) is the main subject of all the dispute and quarrel between them and us: In this they dare not yet, at least have not spoken out, what Continuance, or near what, the Church should determine, no not for the Public Worship, (except the Author of Sunday no Sabbath, that mentions two hours.) But even about the number of one Day in seven, they are not constant, but fly off again sometimes a great way, as afraid to grant so often by way of necessity or assert so often by way of sufficiency, lest they should be put to prove it; and then the fourth Commandment (which they like not, because it would tie them to a whole Days continuance) would be their only sufficient refuge. Therefore also their Reasons are very doubtfully and waveringly propounded. And so we esteem, that such an Answer is over ambiguous to be sufficient to satisfy either of our Arguments. And if they will hereafter (or any for them) offer to make an answer definitely and clearly, either to the necessity or sufficiency of the proportion; Let them have but one Day of ten, or twenty as necessary, and two hours of that Day; or nominate those, or any other proportions of Frequency and Continuance as sufficient: Whatever they instance in, (and whether it be well or ill) yet will it suffice for our Arguments, to justify them, and confirm, that the Church hath no absolute, or legislative authority to determine this chief Time necessary and sufficient to Religion. But that Nature, and Reason, or Scripture, some, or all of these, do beforehand determine the necessity and sufficiency of it. And that the Church's office herein is no more but of a Crier, or Preacher, (as our Divines urge against the Papists, in point of the Church's authority to determine what Books are the Word of God) to declare and pronounce, and then consequently to use her authority over her members, to urge them to the observation of it, as much as may be: and not at all of a Lawgiver, to determine it. And thus much, we verily believe, these Arguments have evinced undeniably. Which therefore we again desire our Readers to observe, that so the Churches absolute and unlimited authority may be no more urged in this controversy, no not in general (and so deceivable) terms. And then we doubt not, but many Readers will soon see a necessity to have recourse to the fourth Commandment, as Gods own determination of this necessary and sufficient chief Time for Continuance, a whole Day, for Frequency, one in seven, as the only sure ground for consciences to rest upon in so important a matter. And that many more, (not to say all, that are not swallowed up with prejudices) will be of the same mind, when we have expressly discussed, whether the Church's wisdom will or can suffice to determine from Nature and Reason, and any thing in Scripture (besides the precise determination of one Day in seven, according to that fourth Commandment) the just proportion of necessary and sufficient Time for Religion. Which we shall take to task, ere we make an end of this question in this Chapter. In the mean Time, we go on to a fourth Argument. [If the Church have Authority to determine the chief Time for all its Members, XXVIII. Argument 4. The Church cannot determine Time for family, or solitary Worship. than it hath Authority to determine the Continuance so laregly to extend beyond the Public Worship, even to take in both domestic Worship where it may be had, and specially solitary Worship, by every Christian apart, before and after the Public Worship. But the Church hath no Authority to determine of Continuance so largely, as to extend beyond the public Worship, even to take in both family Worship where it may be had, and specially solitary Worship by every Christian apart, before and after the public Worship, Ergo, The Church hath no Authority to determine the chief Time for all its Members.] The consequence hath been proved before at large, in the former Chapter, that the Continuance of the chief Time must be so large, as not only to allow, but to necessitate before and after the public Worship, family Worship also, where it may be had, and however to necessitate, as well as to afford liberty for solitary Worship by every one apart. The Antecedent may be thus strengthened. 1. It is usually said [That the sword, nor the keys, meddle not within doors] that is, Neither the Civil Magistrate, nor the Church-governors', take upon them to make affirmative Laws for private families (for negative they do) in reference to what they do among themselves, not directly concerning the service of the Church or State: And lest of all, do they meddle with their Time; of which every governor of a family is counted Lord and Master, or Lady and Mistress, for themselves and all under their authority. Even when a man is bound by Indentures to teach his apprentice his trade, yet not at this Time, or that Time, or so long together. Therefore we find not that any Church, or Christian Magistrate, though forbidding work to all even within doors, upon such and such Days, hath yet commanded Parents or Masters to catechise their children, and servants, within doors on those Days precisely, or pray with them, or examine them what they have learned in public, or any such like Duties of Religion. 2. But specially in reference to solitary Worship, secret prayers, secret thanksgivings, secret meditations of the word heard, or of any other heavenly and divine matter, concerning God and the soul; The Church hath no authority to determine any Time, which necessarily must be spent in any of these Duties, or any other in secret. Of which we conceive a double reason. 1. Because no authority of man is supposed to reach to that which neither themselves nor any other man living can ever come to know, whether it be observed or not. Which is the case plainly here, No man can know (nor all the men in World) when I retire myself any Day, and shut myself up in my chamber, whether I pray or meditate, or perform any other solitary Worship to God, or not: Unless I tell them afterward, or speak so loud, as that they overhear me, which I am not bound to do, or rather, am bound not to do. It is altogether vain (to say no more) to determine and command that which no account can be taken of by those that command it, or by any man else, whether it be obeyed or not. 2. But further, secret Duties, and so Time to be necessarily employed in them, are immediately Duties of conscience, even the most inward and spiritual that can be. Now no authority of man, of the Church, or any other, reaches immediately to the conscience, and the inward and spiritual part of Duties; But only the Authority of God alone. Here again the Church or any superior may give Counsel, or declare the will of God about such Duties, or such Time to be so employed; But cannot command or determine it, Whereas we are speaking of a Time that must be determined, of which therefore the Church hath no Authority. If it be objected, that the Christian Magistrate, XXIX. An Exception answered. or the Church hath authority to appoint a public Day of Fasting and Humiliation, and this to be spent in Religious Duties, as well private as public, till the end of the Day; and if so, why not for the ordinary chief solemn Time? We Answer in a word, Sol. that the Continuance of a public Fast is before hand determined by God in Scripture, and in the Nature of the business, to a whole Day, and no less Continuance, (neither did ever any Orthodox Church speak otherwise of it, though we know the Popish mock-fasts, or fool fasts, end often at noon) so that all that the Church doth, or the Christian Magistrate, is to appoint and determine the particular Day, or the Frequency of Days, upon some special occasions; and to declare that the Continuance is to be extended so long, with penalties Civil or Ecclesiastical on them that shall be known to transgress it, even within doors, otherwise they do not command properly any particular family, or solitary Worship at all: Or if they did, were it not for those intimations of Scripture, and the Nature of the business of solemn humiliation, (and the prevention of all tolerable ordinary excuses by the public appointment) no man's conscience were bound to observe the whole Day, at home, and in solitary Worship, before and after the public, because of the Churches, or Magistrates authority and determination, for the reasons before set down. Another Argument follows, which is a fifth, against the Church's authority to determine the chief solemn Time. Even against that authority which our Adversaries think most infallibly certain to belong to the Church; namely for the public Worship. Against which, thus we argue. XXX. Arg. 5. The Church cannot command a●l her members to observe the time in public worship. [If the Church have authority to determine the chief Time of Worship for all its members, in reference to the public Worship: Then it hath authority to command all its members, constantly to observe that Time in the public Worship which it determines for it. But the Church hath not authority to command, all its members constantly to observe that Time in the public Worship which it determines for it. Ergo, The Church hath not authority to determine the chief Time of Worship to all its members in reference to the public Worship.] The consequence is certain, from the state of the question, formerly laid down. 1. That the determination discoursed of, makes the Time necessary to Religion, and so commands all unto whom it is made, to observe it constantly. 2. Also our Adversaries do every where make it Moral Natural to observe public worship, and contend that it is the whole morality of the fourth Commandment, to command public worship, and consequently a necessary and sufficient Time to be (by the Church) determined for it. So that the determination of the Time for such public worship, is an express command of a constant observation of such public worship, even by virtue of the Law Moral Natural, and the whole remaining force of the fourth Commandment. 3. Likewise it were a mere vanity, and ridiculous folly, to dispute for authority of determining Times (and so a folly to determine them) if men be not thereby bound, as by a command, to observe those Times once determined, constantly; except in the particular case of reservation, of which we have often given touches before. XXXI. This is confessed by the adverse party. G. Irons. Now for the Antecedent, It will be made good. 1. By our Adversaries own conceits, contradicting themselves (as we touched a while ago in a like Argument) Namely, Though they make the public worship Moral Natural; Yet do they so fare forget themselves, as to exempt shepherds, diggers in mines, servants, (sundry sorts of them at least, as cooks, and others, and divers other people) from any necessity of constantly observing the public worship. Insomuch as the translator of Doctor Prideaux Lecture, imputes it as strange superstition, that a Town of his acquaintance had not a piece of roast or baked meat to a Sundaies-dinner, throughout the whole year, which must needs be because all the servants went constantly to the public worship. An imputation (to say no less of it) worthy the pen of one of those S. Paul speaks of, Phil. 3.19. whose God is their belly: otherwise, how dared he that would carry the face of a Christian, reproach the Ministers of Christ (as he there doth) for teaching the people, both Masters, and servants, to prefer the public worship of God, before the sacrificing to their own bellies, and so to take more care, even of every poor servants soul, by carrying them along to the public worship of God, then to provide for the pampering of their own guts, though with the pinching or starving of their servants souls. But to let him pass, we urge all of them, (and specially those that dispute, that the fourth Commandment was not given to servants) whether they will aver, [That a servant is bound by the Church's determination, to keep constantly to the public worship, from the first to the last of it, every time that there is any] Notwithstanding any Commandment to the contrary? If their (perhaps profane) Masters, though they bear the names of Christians, and that, upon no allowable necessity, will charge them to stay at home altogether, or part of the Time before they go to Church, or come home, before it is ended; and specially if such ungodly Masters (or parents) shall threaten, or beat their inferiors if they do otherwise then they charge them? We say again, what will they say a servant or inferior is bound to in these cases? (which are every day one where or other:) Nay, what is an inferior free to, in these cases? Who hath a soul to save, and so to look after, and a desire to use the means for it, specially Gods public worship; having little or no help at all (but hindrance rather) in the family, and exceeding little time for any solitary devotions? They cannot here answer either way, but they overthrew their own Principles. For either 1. They must say, [Servants and inferiors may, and must keep strictly to the Church's determinations for public worship, notwithstanding any contrary command, or threatening, or cruelty of their ungodly superiors;] Which they will not allow us to urge men to, upon the Commandment and determination of God Himself; and for this, they deny this Commandment of the Sabbath to have lain upon Israel in Egypt; and that the Lords day was strictly observed by the Primitive Christians under persecution. If these things be urged against us, they cannot reasonably urge servants and inferiors, now to cross their superiors upon the Church's determination, even for the Public Worship. 2. Or on the other side they must say, that servants and inferiors are not bound, (nay that they are not free) by the Church's determination, to the Times of Public Worship, because of these inconveniences. And then they grant our Antecedent, [That the Church hath not authority to command all its members constantly, to observe that Time in Public Worship, which it determines to them.] Of will they say, that servants and inferiors, are not members of the Church? or that the Church's determinations reach not to them, (but so far forth as their Masters and Parents will give them leave;) and that they are free, (or rather not free, since the service of God is our perfect freedom, if our Church say true in her prayers) and are not to give God attendance constantly in Public Worship, and so constantly look after their souls? And than what becomes of the Morality of the fourth Commandment for Public Worship? and what of Public Worship, and a sufficient Time, at least for it, Moral Natural? It is beyond our wits, how our adversaries can expedite themselves out of the entanglements of these contradictions, whereas in our way, all is plain in three words. [God determining the Time to all, all, even servants and inferiors are bound to observe it to His honour, and the good of their souls & so to be willing and careful of it (and they are free to observe it, being willing,) notwithstanding any opposition of men, Masters, Parents, or others.] And though they may and must regard God's reservations, and so stay at home, to tend a sick person, and do any thing which is truly necessary; yet not upon slight pretences, or trifling occasions; and when they are at home, they are to redeem all Time possible, to serve God, and look after their souls by themselves. And if for this, they incur their superiors displeasure, they must trust God in that, as well as if they would urge them to lie, or do any other wickedness. XXXIII. Proved by reason. 2. Another proof of our Antecedent against the Church's authority even for the Public Worship, in a word, (according to what hath been touch● in a former argument) is, that [If the Church hath authority to commanded all its members, to observe constantly that Time in Public Worship which it determines to them: It may command them 2, 3, 4, 5. Days in a Week, and 5. or 6. or 8. Hours of each of those Days, both Masters, and Servants, Inferiors, and Superiors: and call them from their works to public Worship so often, and so long.] But this must not be, therefore the Church hath no such authority, even for the Public Worship, and the Times for it. A sixth argument is this. XXXIIII. Argument sixth. The Church cannot make a perpetual determination. [If the Church hath authority to make this determination of the chief solemn Time necessary and sufficient to its members for Religion; Then it hath authority to make a perpetual determination. But the Church hath no authority to make a perpetual determination. Ergo, The Church hath not authority to make this determination.] The Consequence may be thus confirmed: that proportion of Time, which is both necessary for Religion, & sufficient for Religion, (for the chief Time of Worship) is in reference to men (not to say in the nature of) Perpetual. For nothing can be taken from that which is necessary, nor added (by man's authority) to that which is sufficient. So that if the determination of the Church hath made the Time necessary and sufficient to Religion, it hath made it withal perpetual and unalterable. The Antecedent, that the Church cannot make a determination perpetual; Is partly proved by the confession of the adversaries in this case in hand. For they dispute and argue (divers of them) for the Church's authority at this day; to alter and change the Time, the Lords Day, not only to some other Day of the week, but to some other number, greater, or smaller. Partly by the general confession of all Orthodox Divines (even the Heretical Papists also,) that all institutions & determinations & law● of men (even of the Church universal,) are in their own not ●e alterable; and at least the Church universal may alter them in a general Council: And so that it belongs to God only to make laws perpetual and unchangeable. And therefore, say we, it belongs only to Him to make this determination of the necessary and sufficient chief solemn Time for all men, and particularly for all the members of the Church: which doing, it is unquestionably, in reference to men, XXXIV. Argument seventh. perpetual and unalterable. A seventh Argument thu● proceeds, [If God have given the Christian Church this authority to determine the necessary, sufficient chief solemn Time for Religion, It is a burden to Christians, that the Church have this authority. to all its members: Then it is by way of spiritual privilege and liberty for Christians. But it is not a spiritual privilege or liberty to Christians to have this authority given to the Church. Ergo, God hath not given to the Church this authority.] The Consequence is not to be denied. 1. Because our adversaries do so much, and so oft, urge the notion of Christian liberty, to prove Christians free from all Gods former determinations of Times, even that of one day in seven for a Weekly Sabbath in the fourth Commandment, and to prove that the Church is to determine the necessary and sufficient Time now. 2. Indeed there can be no other reason imagined, why God should set His Christian Church to make this determination, or make void all His own former determinations, but in favour to His people now, for a spiritual privilege, and Christian liberty. The Time of the Gospel being a Time of spiritual freedom, above the Time of the Old Testament. The Antecedent may be verified several ways. 1. By the confession of the adversaries, who say sometimes (and offer at some reasons for it) that the Christian Church may appoint and determine, more and oftener days than the Jews had determined to them by God himself. (And if it be absolutely left to the Church to determine, they may determine as many as they will,) And so there will be less liberty, in that sense they plead for it, less freedom for worldly occasions, work, and sports, than the Jews had, or then we urge from the fourth Commandment, for one whole Day in seven. For two Days in a week; or even twenty seven Holy days in a year (besides the Lords days weekly;) which are in our Church, if they must be observed at least by abstaining from all work, as some urge in their books; and to be sure, the Ecclesiastical Courts did urge in practice, punishing all those that they could prove did work on any part, even of a Holy day; This we say, was (and would be) less freedom than the Jews had, or then we would have, if the Lords day were wholly observed, and no other days strictly besides. But they may determine (as hath been said) even twice, thrice as many more days, if they have such authority as we dispute of. Where then is the liberty talked of? 2. If the Church had not such an absolute authority to determine but as much as was of old, one whole Day in seven (And without an express prohibition, or pregnant reasons to the contrary, which our adversaries in their way, have not yet alleged, this cannot be denied by them:) And so keep the number and continuance still, and only change the Day; (as we say is done, but by God, not men:) We ask again, where is the liberty talked of? unless they will say it is more liberty to be bound to the Church's determination, even of the same proportions of Continuance and Frequency, then to be bound to a Commandment of God. If they shall say, XXXV. Some Exceptions answered. Sol. that the Church was at liberty whether it would have determined so much, or not. We answer, This is indeed something in respect to the Church-governors, those that have this supposed authority of determination. But it is nothing at all of liberty, in respect to the ordinary members of the Church, to the greater part of Christians; they are as strictly tied by such a determination to one whole Day in seven, by the Church's authority, as the Jews were of old by God's authority, or as we say, Christians are now. And if they would say, Excep. 2. Sol. the tye were less strict: Besides that they have not showed wherein, supposing such a determination, we say, than the determination were vain; For it is vain to make a Law (to determine a Time, or any thing else) authoritatively: and then for those to whom it is made, not to be tied strictly to it, particularly in a Law of this nature for a necessary and sufficient Time for Religion, which supposes a firm obligation to observe it, being once determined by just authority. We say therefore again, where is the Christian liberty? 3. Even the Governors' liberty were but for the first turn, if that be true which we have argued before, that this Time being once determined by whomsoever, is unalterable by man: And even if the Church universal had power to alter it, yet till such an Assembly as did properly represent the Church universal, all Churches had no liberty at all; and however, much less the members of the Churches. 4. Except. 3. If they place the freedom and liberty in determining a less Continuance than a Day, (as indeed this is the main thing they drive at) We answer, 1. that our Church in practice, Sol. against work, hath determined no less than a Day's Continuance wholly; and the 13. Canon of 1603. speaks no less (affirmatively) for the observation of the whole Day, though in some general terms. 2. And then they must say, that it is unlawful for the Church to determine a whole Day: which they cannot well do, considering 1. that a whole Day may be lawfully observed, by their own confessions; and they usually hold, that what a man may do voluntarily, the Church may enjoin to do. Also, 2. we have argued one Day at least in ones life to be Morall-Naturall, and therefore God doth not, in likelihood, refuse the determination of a whole Day in a convenient Frequency. As likewise, 3. We have showed, that a whole Day's Continuance, in a convenient Frequency, is clearly the most profitable distribution of the proportion for the chief Time, and far more advantageous both for Religion, and worldly business, than a less Continuance with a more Frequent Revolution. There is no probability therefore at all, (unless there were a certain word for it in Scripture, which there is not) that God should allow the Church liberty to determine the Continuance any other way, and not allow the determination to a whole Day. 5. Yet again, if so, This may be satisfied with determining it to begin within a quarter of an hour of every ones waking, and to continue till within a quarter of an hour of their lying down to sleep, (or of midnight) and what remarkable liberty were this, to be granted as a spiritual privilege, and purchased by the blood of our Redeemer? (as they sometimes speak to us in scorn, when we name some few restraints on the weekly Sabbath to the Jews, which we are now freed from.) 6. But above all, we desire the Christian Reader to consider two things more: the one is, how that can be called a spiritual privilege, or Christian liberty, if the Church have authority to determine remarkably less Frequency, or specially less Continuance than God determined to the Jews? Remarkably less than a Day? When the souls of Christians are toiled with worldly businesses all the week long, and almost over grown with the thorns of worldly cares and distractions, through multitude of employments, specially being servants and inferiors, or men of great trading, or of much business, even in public affairs, as great Statesmen; and they long for the Sabbath, the chief solemn Time, that they may have leisure to breath toward God, and refresh their souls with converse with Him, in Public, Domestic, and Solitary worship; and so provide for Eternity, specially that Day, all other Days being so much taken up with temporal and earthly matters: And now the Time is so short by a scanty determination, that specially as soon as the Public Worship is over, they are again called upon by their earthly businesses, and forced to their worldly drudgery again (as their spiritual souls will call it) even by others importunities and haunting them, specially themselves being inferiors. Is this, we say, a spiritual privilege, a Christian liberty, for which the blood of the blessed Redeemer was (in part) shed to purchase it? What our Adversaries consciences (when they do more seriously to consider it in cold blood, then perhaps they ever yet have done hitherto) will judge of this, we know not. But for our own parts, we are so far from counting or calling this a Christian liberty, that we esteem it were a miserable slavery and bondage to souls and consciences. And so contradictory expressly to the gracious intents of our most gracious Redeemer, whose blood hath procured us all advantages to our souls that can justly be desired, and in no wise left us in worse condition for our souls good, than the Jews were. And we doubt not but the conscientious Readers will be greatly of our minds. We wish our Adversaries sadly to consider it. 7. The other Consideration is, That if a Christian upon this supposition of a scanty determination of the Church in the point of Continuance, whether superior or inferior, (but specially if an inferior) Or even in the case of observation of whatsoever Time determined by the Church, be it more or less, oftener or seldomer; shall in their voluntary observation of any other Time, or in their obediential observation of their determined Time, be encountered with froward interruptions, (though not of necessity sufficient to be yielded to by God's reservations) or specially be commanded, or threatened, or misused by Masters, or Parents in opposition to it; Were it to be counted a spiritual privilege to have no better ground of suffering, than the Church's determination? Were this to be reputed a Christian liberty purchased by the blood of our divine Redeemer? (by the blood of God, as it is Act. 20.) Or rather an unhappy want of a firm foundation of confidence in suffering? Wherein Christians having the express word of God determining them to this (whatever it be) of Time which they observe, they may justly triumph and rejoice in any loss, or reproach, or suffering whatsoever. We conclude then, We discern nothing less than a spiritual privilege or Christian liberty, for this chief necessary and sufficient Time for Religion to be left to the Church's determination. And therefore we say, doubtless, such authority of determination was not left to the Church. XXXVI. Arg. 8. Then a matter of great importance were left to great uncertainties, As We argue yet again in the eighth place, [If this authority of determining the necessary sufficient chief solemn Time for Religion, unto its members, be left to the Church; Then is a matter of greatest importance in Religion left by God to manifold great uncertainties, even among Christians. But a matter of greatest importance in Religion cannot be supposed to be left by God to manifold uncertainties, even among Christians. Ergo, This authority is not left to the Church.] The Antecedent needs little proof, considering the perfection of the Scriptures, and the singular love of God toward His Church, His Christian Church specially. Whom though He hath favoured with not prescribing to them many particularities, to which He obliged His Israel of old, Yet it is not to be believed, that He would leave them at manifold uncertainties in a matter of greatest imporatnce to Religion, His own honour, and their souls good. For this were no favour to them, but a token of disfavour rather. This will be cleareer, when we have illustrated and proved our Consequence, which we thus endeavour. XXXVII. 1. What is meant by the Church. 1. It is uncertain, even to many Christians, whose piety is not to be despised, nor their learning neither: what is meant by the Church, to whom the authority is given in any matter by God? Some pleading for particular Churches or Congregations, to have it in themselves, even Independently: Others are for Classical and Presbyterial Assemblies of divers Churches, and so higher, Synods of Provinces, and of a whole Nation. Others again are for Bishops, and the authority to be in them, and Synods of them, and Delegates under them, and Archbishops, and Primates, etc. above them: Also all (but those that are of the Independency) do ascribe a chief authority (the chiefest that the Church Chhistian hath) to a General Council, representing the Church universal. (We name not here the Popish plea for their universal Bishop's authority, as beyond a question among Orthodox and Reformed Churches, among whom our present dispute is.) Now we say, that even this Uncertainty, and the disputes about all these things, do so exceedingly enervate the strength of any Church's determinations: as that it is apparently enough seen and known, that they are scarce any where further obeyed, than men stand in fear of the Church-censures; and not always then neither, many choosing to incur the censures, rather than be tied to such observances as they think God hath not tied them unto. Which Principle would be sure to make any determination, that any Church should make, (except only a General Council of the whole Church; Of which yet we have divers things to say by and by) little better than none at all, with many, perhaps with most; specially if the Church should pretend to determine the Time to extend to domestic, and most of all to solitary worship; as we have showed it ought so to extend. 2. Again, where this is agreed, XXXVIII. 2. What persons have any votes. that the Church's authority belongs to this or that Assembly, Instance in any, or all: Yet is it not agreed, nor certain, in many minds, (who again, we say, are not to be despised) what persons in these Assemblies have votes and suffrages to determine any thing by way of authority, in those matters wherein that Church or Assembly hath authority. Even those that are for Independency of Churches, agree not all in this. Some plead for all the People (that are Men:) Others only for the Officers, Ministers, and Elders, and in some matters taking in the Deacons also. Those that stand for Classes, Presbyteries▪ and Synods. Some admit all the Ministers of a Province to the Provincial Synod; Others, a less number chosen out of the several Classes, or Presbyteries. Again, some admit their Lay or Ruling Elders to have decisive voices in points even of Doctrine, as well as Discipline. Others restrain matters of Doctrine only to Ministers, Pastors and Teachers. Those that plead for Bishops, some argue for their sole authority without the suffrages (decisive at least) of any Presbyters. Others require a joint consent of a competent number of Presbyters; and they again are divided: Some standing for a set Presbytery, in or near the City; Others for all the Diocese, which therefore they would argue, aught to be but of a narrow extent. Again, when they come to speak of a Provincial, or Nationall Synod of Bishops, It is disputed, whether any Presbyters ought there to have decisive voices; and if so, how many, and by whom, and in what manner they are to be chosen; whether by Proxies, or not. Also of what validity any such determinations by any of these Assemblies, Provincial or Nationall for instance, shall be of, before or without the consent of Secular Princes and States, specially being Christian? And once more, for General Counsels, what persons have right to vote there, (we mean not from humane custom, or the like, but divine authority, of which we now dispute) whether only Bishops, as some say; Or Presbyters also, as others maintain; or also Laymen; as not a few do likewise plead? And which way soever we take it, What numbers to be chosen for each Nation? And by what way and consent? And when met; whether to vote by Nations, as in the Council of Basill? or by the major part of the whole Council? Now all this, we say, renders our determination in hand, exceedingly the more uncertain; which would be argued by some to be a point of Doctrine, by others to be a matter of discipline; and by Princes and States to be a thing specially concerning the Civil State also, by reason that men that while, must be ordinarily forbidden all Civil businesses; and so they are to have a share in this determination, if in any at all. And the issue must needs come to this, that none would think themselves bound to hold such determination necessary, or themselves or theirs bound to observe it necessarily, if the whole way of the determination were not according to their opinion about the authority. Besides, that as much question would also be made by divers others, about the sufficiency of the Time. And so, we say again, The determination could not be but unsufficient, and unsatisfying greatly, to great numbers of Christians. XXXIX. 3. Whether they do not err, in their determination. 3. Suppose a full agreement about the persons to whom the authority belongs: Yet no man holds that all the decisions, even of general Counsels, are infallible. The Major part may err, about the necessary proportion, and determine too much, about the sufficiency, and determine too little. The general Council of Ariminum erred about the dinivity of Christ, much more may a general Council err about this necessary and sufficient Time. Having specially no certain Rule to go by, (as cannot well be denied, and shall be proved fully anon) when the fourth Commandment for one Day in seven is made to be out of date. And now what certainty have Christians, or can they have, that there will be no error? Or that there is none in their determination, when it is made. 4. XL. 4. Whether their votes were free. Suppose the determination of the Major part of a general Council freely voting, be infallible: Yet how uncertain is it, whether the votes have been free? Whether the Major part were that way, that is, delivered for the determination? Whether there were no forcing of men's voices, by instructions from Princes and States, and threaten, and the like? We read of such things in the Acts of Counsels. And we read also, of Canons pretended to be made by the great Council of Nice for the Pope's Supremacy, which yet were proved to be foisted and supposititions. And what then can or shall secure remote Nations; and specially succeeding generations, that the proceed were regular, the votes rightly given? And this the certain and infallible decision and determination of the Council? What can do this latter but a most exact and complete expression in writing, authentically sealed, and so preserved, and after multiplied by copies most carefully examined? But for the former, we know no security suitable to the stress that consciences must be put upon often for the observation of the Time as necessary; and the satisfaction requisite to make it be acknowledged sufficient. 5. Suppose the determination, XLI. 5. Whether the determination be too strict, or too remiss. undoubtedly made by the Council, and clearly and fully expressed: Yet what uncertainty were Christians yet left unto? If by the strictness of the determination requiring a large Continuance and often, any shall judge, that the Major part of the Council were too precise, and carried away with an excess of zeal, and so have made a determination too burdensome to Christians, prejudicial to their Christian liberty, and to their worldly businesses; and so that they have laid as necessary upon them, a proportion unnecessary, (set aside their authority) we would feign know of our Adversaries, what such, who so judge, are likely to do in point of observation? (Specially when they are out of sight of those who would censure them for omission?) Or even what a Nation were bound to do, when their deputies were returned from the Council with so unnecessary and burdensome a determination of Time to be observed as necessary? Again on the other side, If by the slenderness of the determination, requiring but a short Continuance and seldom revolution, any shall judge that the Major part of the Council were too Worldly; and carried away with principles of libertinism, and so have made a determination prejudicial to Religion, and unsufficient for God's Honour and the good of men's souls in reference to the chief solemn Time: we would feign know again, what is like to be done upon this? Or what a Nation were after the Council, bound to do●? Shall they, or will they (or even any particular Churches, or persons) hold to such an unnecessary, or unsufficient determination? Or if they should, or may, make another, how was the authority in the general Council? And again, by what rule shall they make another? And if the Nationall Church shall make another, are not they liable to the other extreme? (Nay, if they may wave the authority of the general Council, is it not possible themselves may be the mistakers, and the general Council was in the right?) And than who shall, or who may, or must judge of that? What may or must particular Churches do in this case? And even particular persons who are so immediately concerned in it, (as we have showed in the beginning of the Chapter;) Will it not finally result into the authority of particular Churches? Which most of our Adversaries will (we dare say) not yield to, and we shall bring an Argument also against by and by. Are not then all things upon uncertainties in this greatest matter of importance to Religion? How can it then be imagined, that God hath so left it, under the New Testament, who so fully prevented all under the Old Testament, as cannot be denied, at least, in reference to His people of Israel? XLII. Argu. 9 It makes the Church to this Day guilty of sin in not determining it. We proceed to a ninth Argument, which we thus deliver against the authority of the Church universal, in this matter. [That which makes the Church universal, and all general Counsels to this Day, to be guilty of grievous sin, is not to be believed or admitted. But to ascribe this authority to the Church to determine the necessary and sufficient Time for Religion unto all its Members, makes the Church universal, and all General Counsels to this day to be guilty of grievous sin. Ergo, The ascribing this authority to the Church, is not to be credited or admitted.] The Proposition needs little proof. He should be very audacious, that should offer to condemn, not only some General Counsels, but all; and not only in one age, but ever since the Apostles Times, and the universal Church withal, as not endeavouring the amendment of a notorious fault, as we shall see. The assumption may be verified, by declaring 1. That if the Church universal have not by some General Council, made a clear and express determination of this necessary sufficient Time, It cannot be excused of grievous sin, upon this supposition of this authority belonging to the Church. 2. That the Church universal hath not to this day, in any General Council made any clear and sufficient determination in this kind. The first of these cannot well be denied. For this were to be wanting to a duty most mainly concerning Religion, and the Worship of God, and His honour throughout the Church, and the good of all Christians souls, and to a law Moral Natural, as appears by what our adversaries confess of the morality of a sufficient Time to be determined, (even suppose, but for the Public Worship,) and as we have proved the necessity of such a determination to Religion to be made by some or other; and so by the Church, the Church universal, if the authority belongs to them. And to omit it, though upon mistake, and not thinking it to belong to them, were to be guilty of sin, though a less sin (namely, only of Ignorance,) then if through negligence, or any other respect, so many General Counsels have forborn to make it: For that were to slight Religion, the honour of God, the souls of Christians, exceedingly: which doubtless, the Christian Church, and the first General Counsels were not guilty of. But yet the second is evident enough, that no General Council hath made this determination: Not only because no such Canon is to be found in any of them to this purpose, no not so much as for any thing of it; not for the particular day; (though of this, the Laodicean Council, which was provincial, speaks plainly, as we shall hear hereafter,) much less, for the Frequency, and least of all for the Continuance. As also because our adversaries who ascribe much to General Counsels, yet dispute one while against the Day, as changeable by the present Church, another while against the number, that it may be one of eight, or of six, or of some other number: But specially against the Continuance (against which indeed their greatest spite is.) And when we allege any Provincial or Nationall Counsels, averring the Divine authority of the Lords day, and the total sanctification of it, and so making Canons, not to ordain, but to confirm those determinations, they reject them as but partial Authorities, and not as speaking the sense of the Church universal. Therefore we say again, the Church universal, either took it for granted (in all the General Counsels) that those determinations were already made to their hands by God and His word, in the Old and New Testaments; and that Christians generally did acknowledge and observe them: or else it sinned in not sufficiently discharging the trust committed to it about this determination, in not making it expressly, or not transmitting it clearly to posterity. If they took the matter to be of no importance, they sinned undeniably in so undervaluing it. If they took it to be of importance, and yet took no care of it, they sinned yet more. What remains then, but that the very silence of the Church universal in so many General Counsels as have been held from Constantine's Time, proclaims that they esteemed it (as sundry provincial Counsels speak, we shall hear) concluded before by God and Christ and the Apostles in the word; and found it in the common acknowledgement and practice of Christians. Which as it decayed any where, the provincial and national Counsels took order to declare the truth; and make sanctions for a more conscionable observation. And we for our parts cannot think otherwise, but that God in His providence so disposed of it, that no General Council should take upon them to meddle with this determination; lest their Injunctions, only for confirmation, should be misse-interpreted to be an institution, and a determination: (as some of our disputers do almost make as much of a constitution of Constantine's, for the observation of the Lords day;) But hereby he hath the more fully and manifestly reserved the authority to himself, and to be sought for in His written word. XLII. Arg. 10. Even the Apostles themselves. And being come thus far, let us with our Readers good leave make bold to carry this argument one step higher, even concerning the universal Church in the most ancient and primitive, Apostolic Times, taking in the Apostles and all; or rather make a new argument for clearer distinctions sake: Thus, If the determination of the necessary sufficient Time for Religion belong to the Church, than it belonged to the Apostles and the primitive Church Governors, to make it for all Christians. But it belonged not to the Apostles and Primitive Church Governors, to make it for all Christians. Ergo, It belonged not to the Church.] The consequence cannot be denied, for no succeeding generation of the Church can have this authority, no not for their own age, if the Apostles and Pimitive Church Governors had it not. The Antecedent is thus confirmed. [That authority which they did not practise in a matter of greatest importance to Religion, the Apostles and Primitive Church had not. But they did not practise the making of this determination. Ergo, They had no such authority.] The Major cannot be denied without charging the whole Primitive Church, and then all the Apostles also with grievous sin. The Minor is thus further confirmed. [That which the Apostles did in all matters of great importance to Religion, they left clear and sufficient record of, for the practice of Christians. But there is not left any clear and sufficient record of the Apostles determination of the necessary and sufficient Time for Religion unto Christians, Ergo, The Apostles did not make this determination.] Again, the Major cannot be gainsaid without charging upon the Apostles that guilt of sin, even of great neglect: So many of them writing Gospels and Epistles for Christians, to put in no word, in an authentic record, to let Christians in all succeeding generations understand what they had determined, according to the authority wherewith they were entrusted by God, concerning the chief Time for Religion necessary and sufficient for Frequency and Continuance. The Minor is no less clear. Our adversaries take pains to prove (and we stick not to grant them) that the Apostles have not in Scripture, nor any where else, left any clear sufficient authentic record of any determination of theirs in either of these respects. Nay they will not so much as yield, that the Lords day (for the particular Day, and for Frequency every week,) was certainly and infallibly so much as practised by all the Apostles. For divers of them quarrel and dispute against all the places that mention any thing of it in the New Testament: Therefore say we again, the Apostles were far from determining, either the Frequency, or the particular day, or the Continuance specially, (of which the greatest controversy is) yet this (or namely the Continuance) they ought to have determined as carefully as any thing, if it had been left to them. It being of greatest Importance; as appears (besides all that we have formerly discoursed of the differance between two hours, or an hour, or half an hour (or less) of a Day, and the whole Continuance of a Day for Religion:) even by our adversaries eagerness against us, for urging the necessity of a whole Day's Continuance; and our complaints of them for their scantying of God, and souls, by disputing for less. To avoid then superstition on the one hand, and profaneness on the other, the Apostles (and Primitive Church) if they had had the authority of determining the Continuance, aught to have determined it, and would have determined it, if it had belonged to them; and would have made an authentic clear and sufficient record of it, if they had determined it. But they have done none of all this, as both our adversaries and we also jointly say. Ergo, we conclude (and we cannot imagine how they can possibly avoid the dint of this argument, besides all the other;) [That the Apostles and Primitive Church had no such authority to determine this necessary and sufficient chief solemn Time for Religion unto Christians.] But that the Word of God, even in the Old Testament, that is, in the fourth Commandment for one whole Day in seven, had done it for perpetuity, and they acknowledged it and observed it, and meddled not with any alteration of it, or making any new determination. And that, as for the particular Day, they preached the old Day abrogated by Christ, and then as we have employed heretofore (and shall again urge further hereafter) the first Day of the Week came, even by virtue of the determination of one in seven, in the room of it immediately; Besides what may be argued for Christ's justification of it, when we come to handle that question against the Jewish Sabbatarians. And this being of less importance than the determination of the Continuance and Frequency; God in His unsearchable wisdom thought fit only to afford some designations of its observation, and His owning it as His in the New Testament, and not any peremptory command, like to that of the Decalogue. Of which also more hereafter. XLIV. Arg. 11. Then it should belong to every congregation. We proceed in our arguments. The next is this, [If the authority of determining to Christians the necessary sufficient chief Time for Religion, belong to the Church; Then it belongs to every particular congregational Church to determine it unto its members; But it belongs not to every particular, congregational Church, to determine it unto its members. Ergo, It belongs not to the Church at all.] The Consequence hath been partly made good already. But we must repeat those things briefly, and bring them under one view together, and add some other things to them for fuller confirmation. 1. The practice and observation of a necessary and sufficient Time for Religion immediately concerns every particular Church, (even every particular conscience, as we have said) for God's honour among them, and the benefiting of all their souls. 2 The Time must be determined, and that as necessary and sufficient, that it may be so observed by that particular Church, and all its members. 3. It hath been already showed the great uncertainties that there are, about the determination of this Time, belonging to a Church Nationall or Universal, and the Possibilies of their erring either in the point of necessity or of sufficiency, through want of zeal, excess of zeal, and want of prudence: In all these cases, what can be said, but that the authority must be devolved to each particular congregational Church for its members; that so God may have His honour among them, though he hath it not aright among others; and their souls may be benefited, and their consciences not overburdened, however it be in other Churches? 4. In case any particular Church be in a Paganish Country, converted and gathered by means of some captive Christian, or the like; who yet is able to show no authentic proof of any determination of the universal Church in this point, nor of any Nationall Church, which this particular Church should be bound to, by virtue of their authority over it; It is of necessity that that particular Church determine the Time for itself and its members. 5. To this Day, as we touched before, the universal Church hath not (nor scarce any Nationall Church, of late) made a clear determination, (or declaration) of the Continuance, of the Day which is by practise every where weekly observed. How much, we say, of the Lords day, is to be kept holy and strictly for God and the soul? Yet this is necessary to be determined. Therefore the authority to determine it must needs be devolved to every particular Church, through the defect of the universal Church's determination of it, and so of Nationall, and Provincial, or Diocesan, or Classical Churches. As also (as was argued formerly) in particular Church's default in like sort; to particular Persons for themselves, and their own souls and consciences single. 6. Finally, the Scripture, upon our Adversaries suppositions, is undeniably (we think) for this: And so is the practice of the Christian Church. 1. The first certain intimation we have in Scripture of the new Day observed by Christians for Religion, (though this also, some quarrel with, and question) is Act. 20.7. which was in a particular Church, at Troas; and our Adversaries will not allow us to infer from St. Paul's presence, and observation of it with them, that he instituted it there; and much less among all Churches. It was then (as they contend) the particular institution of that particular Church of Troas; and so the determination of the particular Day and Frequency (whatever was, or was not, of the Continuance) belonged to particular Churches. 2. Our Adversaries refuse also the intimation of 1 Cor. 16.2. (notwithstanding the mention of an Ordination, at least, about the Collection) that either to Corinth, or to the Churches of Galatia, the Apostle did institute or determine the first Day of the week to Religion. Yet it was observed then (as they do not deny in their good moods, though they can find in their hearts to dispute against that place also; Therefore the institution and determination was made by those particular Churches, for the Day, and the Frequency at least. 3. The practice of the Christian Church will say the same too. For 300 years after Christ, there was not (neither could there be till there was a Christian Emperor) any general Council. So that the universal Church determined it not, neither could it. Nor do we read any Nationall or Provincial Council that seems to determine it, till that of Laodicea, which was near 300 years after Christ's resurrection; Whereas the Lord's day was practised and observed by that name, and the name of the first Day of the week, in every age from the Apostles Times, as we shall show hereafter. It must be then instituted and determined by some particular Churches, and imitated by others, and so came to be universally practised: Unless the Apostle instituted and determined it for all, (which our Adversaries admit not, and we have disproved in their sense,) or that God and Christ ordained it (whether immediately or mediately by the Apostles, it matters not greatly) and so certainly it was. XLV. Which is disproved by many reasons. For now to prove our Antecedent, [That it belongs: not to every particular congregational Church to make this determination.] 1. It is not credible that all particular Churches, if the power were in themselves, would determine the same Continuance, nor the same Frequency, nor so much as the same particular Day. For to speak of the first, do not our disputers now argue one while for Thursday to be as fit a Day, in memory of Christ's Ascension, as the Lords day in memory of His Resurrection: Another while for Friday, in memory of His death? How would this then be, if they, or such as they, had the authority in their own hand, (much, if not altogether) being the Ministers, and so at least the chief in authority in the particular Congregations? should we not be likely in a great City, as London, but specially in a Nation, or Kingdom, to have all the Days of the Week determined by one or other particular Church, namely one by one, and another by another, and so others by others? Again, in such diversities of tempers, differences of zeal, or worldliness; wanting a steady Rule (as we shall see) and so a ground of wisdom, would there not be greater danger of variety about the Frequency and Continuance? 2. In all Churches, that were near one another, diversities of Days would breed great disturbance of one another, and the members of each from others, and hindrance also to traffic, and journeys, and all business; and in a word, introduce nothing but disorder and confusion. Which yet would be more increased, by a diversity in regard of the Frequency and Continuance, whereby those that observed and were tied to more and oftener, would be reproached by others as over-precise, and would be apt to grumble at their own bondage; And they that observed and were tied to less and seldomer, would be censured as profane and careless of Religion; and perhaps would be in doubt of the sufficiency of their Church's determination; and so be apt to make a schism in it, or from it. 3. If it were resolved once, that this authority did certainly belong to every particular Church, it would hardly be agreed among them unto whom it did belong. Whether to the Minister (or Ministers) alone, as some would think? Or to them and the Ruling Elders together, as others would say? Or to the whole people with them, that is, all the men grown, as others would maintain? Or even taking in women also, as the Anabaptists do, in matters of Church-government? And in this, the difficulty would be the greater; because (as we have urged before) the thing concerns the consciences of every one exceedingly in a point of necessary practice for God's Honour, and their souls good; and necessary freedom for their soul's benefit, and necessary satisfaction for their consciences. We say, this concerns people as well as Ministers or Elders, and women as well as men; and therefore all must have some share in the determination: So fare, as if it be not at all determined in any respect (as even for Continuance) they must determine it for themselves; And 2. If it be too burdensomely and unnecessarily, they may and must ease themselves of that burden; And 3. If it be unsufficiently, they must provide better for their consciences, and souls, and God's Honour; And so in effect it would devolve to every particular person, for themselves single; which we have before disproved, as that which would infallibly fill the World and the Church with irreligion, disorder, and confusion. 4. Place this authority where you will, or can, in a particular Church; Yet considering the small number of Ministers, and Elders, (take them together) in particular Churches; and the weakness, and corruption that even they are not free from, and specially the people are liable unto, suppose them as good as can be supposed: Upon how slender a pin doth Religion, God's Honour, and the good of those souls depend, if so important a determination for Religion, be altogether trusted in their hands; specially having no certain Rule to make it by, as we shall see strait way? 5. Last of all, can it with any reason be imagined, That the Church of Troas, or that of Corinth, or those of Galatia, (all founded by Saint Paul, unless that of Troas were by any other Apostle) would have offered to have made so important a determination, without the Apostle, or some other of the Apostles? For what lest matter can be produced, that any particular Church in those Days did ordain by their own authority? And much less then, would they have meddled with this. Neither can it be supposed (as was noted before) that the Apostles preaching the Abrogation of the old Jewish Day, the Saturday-Sabbath, (and as our Adversaries imagine also, the cessation of the whole fourth Commandment in regard of the words of it) would not have determined, to the Churches where they preached these things, or at least with them, this great matter which must of necessity be observed, and so determined, for the honour of God, and the good of every Christian soul; namely, a new proportion of Continuance and Frequency for the chief Time to Religion, and a new Day for it. Yet we shown in a former Argument, both by evident reason, and our Adversaries assertions, that the Apostles did not meddle to make any of those Determinations any where. Therefore we suppose it to be fully clear, that the Particular Churches did not make those Determinations to themselves, neither had they authority so to do. And so no Church had, or hath. But it ever belonged to God, and was by Him done for all succeeding generations of His Church in the fourth Commandment, for the Continuance of a whole Day, and the Frequency of one in seven: And by virtue of this, and other intimations in the New Testament, for the Lordsday, the first Day of the Week, to be the particular Day. And so we have, as we are persuaded, XLVI. Arg. 12. All men want wisdom to determine it. sufficiently and clearly refuted the supposed authority of the Church, and of all men [about the Determination of this chief solemn Time, necessary and sufficient for the chief Time of Religion, unto all Men and Christians:] that is, in point of Authority properly. But we conceive, all will be much more strengthened, which we have argued, by the addition of another general Argument, against any man's, or number of men's determinations of it, even the Churches, whether in times of the old Patriarches before Moses, or the Christian Church of the New Testament; and that is in point of Wisdom: As having no Rule, whereby possibly to guide themselves steadily in the making of this determination of the chief Time necessary and sufficient. For, whatsoever we take into consideration, that may seem to make towards a Rule; will and doth render it more perplex; Either calling for so much, as men will never be willing to grant necessary; or leaving them altogether uncertain, whether that they would pitch upon, were sufficient, both in reference to the whole proportion of the chief Time; as also the distribution of that proportion, whatever it be, between the Continuance and Frequency, save only in case they would pitch upon a whole Day's continuance, to which Nature inclines very much, as we have intimated before, and must again further urge.) Thus we reason: [If there be in Men no sufficiency of wisdom to make this Determination of the necessary sufficient chief solemn Time for Religion to themselves and others; Then this Determination belongs not to Men. But there is in Men no sufficiency of wisdom to make this Determination. Ergo, It belongs not to Men.] The Consequence needs no great labour to prove it. God is too wise, too jealous of His own Honour, too full of love to His people's souls, to leave such a matter as this is so important to Religion, to be determined by such as have not a sufficiency of wisdom for it. XLVII. Having no rule to guide them. The Antecedent is further proved in this manner. [If there be no Rule whereby Men may guide them steadily, about the Proportion necessary and sufficient for the chief solemn Time for Religion, or the distribution of that proportion between the Continuance and Frequency, (except only for a whole Day's continuance, which is refused) Then they can have no sufficiency of wisdom to make this Determination. But there is no Rule, whereby Men may guide themselves steadily about the Proportion necessary and sufficient, or the distribution of it, except, etc. Ergo, Men can have no sufficiency of wisdom to make this Determination.] The Consequence again is evident enough. For what is wisdom, but to do a thing steadily by a sufficient rule? Whatsoever then is done without a sufficient rule, cannot be said to be done wisely, whatever other commendation may be given to it. Neither doth the Exception interposed weaken the Consequence, because (as is expressed) the Continuance of a whole Day is refused, and so refused by all the Adversaries, as that this is the main and original quarrel that hath bred all the rest: and therefore that cannot be pretended by them on their part, as possible to be determined by any rule of wisdom: Though we, for our parts, may (and must) enforce it so, as most apparently wise, and by the perfectest rule of Nature and Reason; against which there is no just gainsaying, unless God himself did utterly reject it: And they that say He hath, have then (we say) no rule of wisdom to go by. For our Antecedent in this, and in the whole, will be abundantly cleared by a serious considering whatsoever may be pretended, either generally or particularly, in whole or in part, to be a rule in these cases. Generally there can be no rule, but either, 1. The Law and Light of Nature; Or, 2. some general expressions of Scripture: We say, some general expressions of Scripture; For all the particular determinations there mentioned, are expressly disputed against by the Adversaries, as no necessary obligations or rules to Christians. Again, for particular rules, total or partial, There are none proper to this Question, but one of these four Considerations. 1. The Nature of the Object of Worship, and the primary end of all Religious Time determined or observed; Namely God, whose nature is unquestionably infinite. 2. The nature of the prime Subject of Worship, and the secondary end of all Religious Time determined or observed; namely, the Soul of Man, which in the duration of it is ordained to be infinite, and in the necessities of it toward the provision for Eternity, is next to Infinite. 3. The nature of the Duties of Worship, in which, that is, in the variety of some or other of them, all Religious Time determined is to be employed: whose nature will appear to be generally (except in one case or two) indefinite. 4. The nature of the secondary Subject, and usual and certain Impediment of Religious Worship, (that it cannot have all Time allotted to it) namely, the body, and bodily and worldly businesses; which allow not, we say, all Time to be devoted to Religion and Solemn Worship: but call for a share of Time from every man, both for Continuance and Frequency, all his life long. The nature of which businesses will appear to be, 1. Suitable to corrupted Nature. 2. Exceeding various, numerous, and uncertain; and capable also of taking up all the Time of life, if they might be suffered. 3. At the best but secondary and inferior businesses. And these four Considerations were all the rules, that Adam, or any of the old Patriarches could have to look to, toward the making of this Determination of the necessary and sufficient chief Time for Religion; if it had been (as is supposed by our Disputers) left to them to make for themselves and others. And they are all also that the Christian Church can well pretend to, supposing the Determination left to them. Only to gratify our Disputers, who seem often to fancy, as though the Proportion the Jews observed, (or rather, we say, which God determined to them) of one Day in seven, may serve for some kind of rule to estimate this necessary and sufficient Time by; Though by no means they will yield that particular proportion (and distribution) to be necessary and sufficient now; For that were to yield, in effect, the whole Cause: We will (we say, to gratify them) take this also into consideration. And so with the best skill we have, examine and set before our Readers all these five, severally and distinctly, according both to the Law and Light of Nature, and general expressions of Scripture: And see what will come of it; And whether, after all, men will not fall short of a sufficient Rule to make this Determination wisely by, if it were left to them. XLVIII. 1. Not the Nature of God himself. 1. We begin (and worthily) with the Consideration of the Nature of GOD, the sole object of Worship, and primary end of all Religious Time; to whose Honour all Solemn Time, and so this chief Time, and all Worship tendered in it, is to be observed. Now we say, The Nature of GOD, (whether we hear Scripture speak, ere even Natural Reason) is unquestionably infinite: And so it cannot be possible to make a definite determination of any Time proportionable to that. If you ask, What Time is necessary for the Honour of GOD in itself considered? The answer can be no other than, All Time is necessary. Or again, If you ask, What Time is sufficient for the Honour of GOD? The answer will still be, Less than all Time cannot be sufficient. [Who can declare the mighty acts of the Lord? who can show forth all His praise? saith the holy Psalmist, Psal. 106.2. [Thy glorious Name is exalted above all blessing and praise] say the holy Levites, Nehem. 9.5. who afterward, in the same confession, remarkably, bless Him, as for a singular favour, for making known to them His holy Sabbaths, (the chief solemn Time of praising Him) v. 16. Here then is nothing to proportion out only a parcel of our Time for Religion, and leave the rest for other purposes; to scanty God, as if He were not worthy of all our Time, and afford the world, and worldly businesses, what is not allotted to Him. The question is not here, whether a man may not employ some Time upon worldly businesses, by God's allowance? For we are far enough from denying that. But whether the majesty, glory and honour of the eternal God, the Lord of us and all our Time, in and by itself considered, can afford to spare any Time from His attendance? and specially which way it can be possible, that the thoughts of His incomprehensible Excellency and Glory, should direct us to share Time between His immediate service, and worldly matters? The holy Angels in heaven keep an eternal Sabbath, without intermission, interruption or end. We shall do so too hereafter with them, if we rightly and faithfully serve Him upon earth. And without all controversy, such an eternal Sabbath, swallowing up all Time, is not over-sufficient to give attendance upon Him and His praises. Nor could be sufficient, if any thing could be added to it. That then all our Time is not so taken up with His immediate worship, even upon Earth; no reason can be sufficient, but His own will, declared to be otherwise then to require the whole from us. His will alone is that which abates of the necessity of any one minute or moment of Time in our whole lives, from our particular attendance upon Him: and that makes any jote less than all, to be in His acceptation sufficient. His will than we must seek further after, in some of the other Considerations. For here we are undeniably at a loss; and can make nothing of our thoughts towards a Determination. 2. Take we a view then, in the next place, XLIX. 2. Not the nature of the Soul. of the nature of the Soul, the prime subject of Worship, and secondary end of all Religious Time; for whose benefit properly it is to be employed. And this, we say, both Scripture chief, and Nature also, (at least not reasonably contradicting) proclaim to be infinite in duration, appointed to an Eternity of happiness, or misery: and its necessities to secure this happiness, and avoid this misery, (considering what corruption it hath) are next to infinite. Which way then can that which is infinite (or next to infinite) afford a direction to judge any proportion definite to be sufficient for it? Or measure so much as necessary, and leave any out, of all the Time that any Soul hath in this life? And if the inevitable necessities of Nature for eating, drinking, and sleeping, etc. be pleaded: yet we doubt not, whether the Soul would not, or should not, grudge even at these, as endangering to hinder that which is of more importance than meat, or drink, or sleep, or even than the bodily life and subsistence itself. Not that we imagine or dream, that God hath not allowed (even by the light of Nature, and much more by Scripture) sufficient Times for all these bodily necessities. But yet we know, that both God sometimes commands to fast, and forbear all meat and drink for a space, and so to watch even whole nights, for the good of Souls, our own specially, but also even of others: As likewise, that when a Soul grows extraordinarily solicitous of its own salvation, (and sometimes even of others) It cannot afford to eat or drink, it cannot sleep, ready sometimes even to starve itself, or kill itself with overwatching; but that it is forced up do otherwise even by God's command, urged upon them by friends, and the fear of prejudicing their very salvation, if they should be causes of their own death. And moreover, it is usual with many Christians to think much and repine at all the Time, wherein they are not spiritually employed for their souls; even though they cannot deny, but God hath not only allowed, but even commanded them to employ hours, and days, many and many, upon worldly businesses: which command and allowance of His, is the only thing that satisfies them; or else they could never, so far forth as they think of their souls, be willing to allow any Time at all to any other thing. And therefore there is no manner of help from hence for any shareing of Time, between the soul, and worldly occasions. The rather, because a soul awakened with sense of its own good, becomes apprehensive, 1. That there are yet manifold things in Religion, which are greatly necessary for it to know, what ever knowledge it hath already attained to; and these call for a great deal of Time to learn them; 2. And how forgetful they are from Time to Time of the things they have learned; and that calls also for much Time to preserve them in memory, and recover any they have lost; 3. Withal the faintness of their godly affection; 4. And the strength of their corruptions; which require still much and often Time to strengthen the one, and combat, and mortify the other; 5. And finally, their being assaulted daily and hourly with temptations and afflictions, and their peace and comfort further wasted by sins and corruptions; which makes them stand in need of Time: Yet more, to regain that peace and comfort when it is gone or wasted; and to enjoy spiritual refresh in the bosom of God's love. All this together cannot but make a soul think no measure of Time, less than all, necessary and sufficient, for attendance upon Him, whom it is bound to love with its whole self, mind, heart, strength: and so to work upon itself, that it may love Him, and be sure of His love: And when it hath once attained to this love of Him above all other things, and to an assurance of His love to it, it cannot but still think, all Time is little enough, and too little, to serve Him in thankfulness for His love: and to enjoy His love, and its own happiness in attendance upon Him, and converse with Him. It must then again be Gods will, declared, that men should spend their Time in this world, otherwise then wholly upon the immediate care of their souls in His immediate service, that must discharge any proportion at all from being necessary to the souls good; See Sect. 71. and so His promise of blessing upon some proportions of Time orderly observed for the chief Time (together with other Times to be redeemed as they can) that makes any proportion to be sufficient for the chief Time. But for this we must still seek further: For we have yet met with no manner of intimation of Gods will how to regulate or determine our proportions. 3. To come then to the third consideration, that is, L. 3. Nor the nature of the duties themselves. of the nature of the duties of Worship, in the varieties of which (of some or other of them) the chief Time we are discoursing about, is to be employed. And they are all (except the Sacraments) apparently indefinite, and so still uncapable to direct to a definite determination of Time necessary and sufficient to be allotted to them, either for Continuance or Frequency. Indeed the Sacrament of Baptism, is, in itself, soon dispatched; and in the nature of it, not to be reiterated to the same person. And the Lords Supper also is soon dispatched, by each particular Communicant. But than it (as well as any of the other duties of Prayer, Preaching, Reading the Word, Praises, Singing, Meditations, Conferences, Catechise,) is capable of a Daily Frequency. And all those may be reiterated oftener, even every new minute, after an interruption; and that every Day of ones life. We mean, the nature of them admits it possible, and no way forbids it. Again, they may be prolonged, any of all these, and much more divers (or all) of them one after another, divers hours, even a whole Day unquestionably: and any one of them a whole life together, if the bodily spirits could hold out so long, and no necessary interruption did call off. On the other side, they may any of them be suddenly dispatched. If a man did preach but half a quarter of an hour, or a minute (as Peter's Sermon related Act. 10. exceeded not a minute, or very little, when the falling of the Holy Ghost on all them that heard the Word, made an interruption, proclaiming withal a sufficiency of acceptation and blessing, for that Time, of his speaking and their hearing;) it might be a true service of God, acceptable to Him, and profitable to souls: And so the reading of a verse, or sentence of the Scripture; Or the singing of a verse or line: Or the praying▪ as long only, as the Publicans [God be merciful to me a sinner.] And so a word or two of conference: and a very speedy thought of meditation. Any of all this might and would (if want of affection to the duties, were not the shortner of them) be pleasing to God, and beneficial to souls, in its degree. There is nothing then (on no hand) in the nature of the duties of Worship, that can possibly be a rule to say, [Such a proportion of Time is certainly necessary, and such a proportion is certainly sufficient: Or the distribution must be so and so, to so much Continuance and no less, and so much Frequency and no seldomer.] Neither can we run back to the considerations of God's honour, or the soul's good, to measure these by. For they have already refused any absolute direction. But still some other thing must estimate, or help to estimate the due proportions of Time for the severals of these. And again, only the will of God, some other way declared, is that which must teach us to conclude, that for the chief Time to be employed in them, any of them, or at least all of them together have been sufficiently prolonged in a just Continuance, on any Day; or sufficiently frequently reiterated: As also, that all of them, or some of them, are necessary to be so long continued together, or necessary to be so often reiterated, nothing can justly determine, but the express will of God; which yet we are to proceed in the search of, as being hitherto never a whit nearer the finding of it, than we were, when we begun to inquire after it. LI. 4. Nor the nature of the body, ot bodily necessities. 4. And now we are arrived at our last Consideration (specially for the world before Moses.) The nature of the body, and worldly business, The body being the secondary subject of religious Worship, joining with the soul in some sort in all solemn Worship, of which we now discourse. And yet it, and specially worldly businesses are certain impediments of Worship, denying at least, [That all Time should be solemnly allotted to it, or spent in it: And so call for, and challenge a share and proportion of all men's Time, both for Continuance and Frequency.] But here also, we are not like to find any better help toward the dividing of our Times between God and the World, the soul and the body, than before; and that in the three regards forenoted. 1. The businesses of the body, and of the World, do greatly border upon corrupted Nature; and so to look at them chiefly to discover a Rule to proportion our Times, is to be sure to be misled. For the issue will undoubtedly be, that the proportions for the body and the world, will be taken too largely, and too slender pittances left for God and the soul: As is more than apparent in many, who, though their consciences cannot deny the fourth Commandment to concern them and theirs, even for a whole Day in a week; yet do not, nor cannot afford God and their souls half the Day, because their minds are so set upon pampering their bellies, and giving way to their laziness, by lying longer in bed that morning than all the week besides, and going sooner to bed that night than any other, besides sleeping, sometimes in the very Day time (not to say, in the very Church, and at the solemn service of God;) also finding sundry pretended necessities, of this, or that worldly business for themselves and theirs: And much more is this evident in those, who have learned the confidence to deny the Commandment for one whole Day of seven, and only pretend to acknowledge (with our disputers) a sufficient Time that God must have. But there is so much correspondency and suitableness between their bodily or worldly occasions, and their carnal corruptions, that they make a shift to shuffle God and their souls off with a very lean and thin allowance of Time, sufficient indeed for nothing, but to render them the more inexcusable, that making show of acknowledging a sufficient Time to be necessary to Religion, they allot such a miserable insufficient parcel to it. And there is no reason to expect it will be any better ordered, while men's corrupted nature hath no better counsellors, than the body and worldly occasions, (under the name of necessities) to help to divide and distribute the proportions of His Time for Religion. 2. This the rather, because the businesses of the body, and of the world towards the bodily life, are so numerous and various, and uncertain, running round throughout the whole year (as is said of a husbandman's work, that it is never done; and so it is with all worldly businesses in one regard or other) and capable also of engrossing the whole of every day; which is most apparent in servants, and those that spend their Times chief at the pleasures of other men: So that there is no possibility of concluding before hand, with respect to worldly businesses, [I may certainly spare for Religion so many Days of a year, or of a month or week, or so many hours of a week, or Day; because I shall have nothing to do about worldly affairs, but may be free to attend on God.] We say, this can never be said in reference to all mankind, (of whom our dispute now is) and so we should have most wild determinations, if men take their aims, only, or chief from the considerations of bodily and worldly businesses, in the proportioning a necessary and sufficient chief Time for God and the soul. 3. For also, at the best, the bodily and worldly occasions are but secondary and inferior matters, fare beneath in worth, not only the Honour of God but the good of souls. And it cannot be fit, or agreeable to wisdom, that inferior matters should give a Rule to superior; or be a measure to them, that is, for the main and chief part of our Time. It is true indeed, That God's gracious indulgence to man's bodily life, and outward comforts, doth allow interruptions in some reserved cases from His solemnest services, and so from His own most solemn determined Times, as we have often said. But without such indulgence printed in Nature, or expressed in His Word, no conscience might, no good conscience would dare so to interrupt His Times and services. Much less then, without His indulgence, may any conscience conclude, and determine, [That such bodily and worldly business as falls within the compass of every man's calling, may be allowed to be the divider, and the distributer of the chief Time of all men, and so God and the souls of men have no other allowance for the chief Time to Religion, than what those worldly considerations shall allot.] This thought about God's indulgence is a most weighty and most necessary consideration in this dispute. But it doth not seem to be at all taken into consideration by our disputers in this question. We shall therefore anon make a distinct argument of it, that we may be sure, they, and all Readers that will take the pains to view those discourses, shall not be able to miss it, or pass it slightly over: But we must first make up this Argument, and another in the mean Time. We say then, that by all this discourse, of the Nature of God, the Nature of the Soul, the Nature of the Duties of Worship, the Nature of the Body, and worldly occasions: Take any of them single and apart, or join any of them or all of them together in the consultation; and we are as fare as can be from any guess how to proportion the Time, between Religion and other matters; except that we ought undoubtedly to say; (if we have nothing but these to direct us) [That to God's honour, and the souls benefit, the fare greater proportion of Time is necessary, and that it cannot be sufficient to let the world possess the largest share.] And if this be true; (as we cannot see how it can possibly be denied, and we shall yet further confirm it in a following argument;) our Adversaries have made a goodly purchsse's, by disputing the abrogation of the fourth Commandment for one Day in seven: In as much as in stead of their pretended Christian liberty not to be tied to such a proportion; all other rules call for twice, thrice, as much; and rather for six Days of seven, and leave but one for worldly businesses. And if they shall object, Excep that men's bodily lives could not be preserved with so little a proportion for worldly businesses and trades. We Answer (set aside the Wisdom of God, Sol. and His allowance of six Days Work, in the fourth Commandment) it is not possible for any man living, or any number of men, to assign certainly, how much Time is to be spent in worldly businesses for the preservation of mankind in a bodily life. If there were that simplicity of Diet, of Apparel, of Buildings & all other things, that there was in the first Ages of the world, and is yet in some Countries (though our pride and curiosity call them Barbarous for it,) certainly a great deal less Time would serve then now doth, for worldly matters. And though, as the constitution of the world now is, we are far from blaming such Trades and Manufacturers, or the using of them, as sins, because specially we believe God to have allowed six Days in a Week, mainly for worldly business according to the fourth Commandment: Yet we say still, that if this allowance were not, we see not any warrant, to employ mankind so much in these businesses (which, as we said, have been spared of old, and are spared in other places at this Day,) to so notorious prejudice and undervaluing of God and His honour, and the good of souls. And so still we are altogether at a less for a rule of wisdom, how to determine, our necessary and sufficient chief Solemn Time for Religion. And therefore this determination could not be, nor was ever left to man, to Adam, or the Partriarkes before Moses (Much loss to the Gentiles and Heathen for themselves and theirs,) nor yet to the Church of the New Testament; LII. 5. Nor the old proportion of one Day in seven in the fou th' Commandment. But remained ever in God's hand, which is the thing to be proved. But we must not forget our fifth Consideration mentioned in reference to the Christian Church: That our Adversaries, in their best moods, when they say, The Church must not offend in excess or defect; not render the yoke of Christians too heavy by appointing too much, nor slight, or seem to slight the service of God, and render it contemptible by appointing too little; They seem to fancy, that the proportion of one Day of seven. (though by no means necessary to be perpetuated) may be a convenient direction, that thereabouts it should be among Christians; and accordingly in the Christian Church, ever one Day in a week hath been observed, which with the addition of Holy days more rarely appointed, they count a sufficient Time for Religion, equal, if not superior to the Time that God had from the Jews under the Old Testament. Now to this, we have divers things to say, though we will not offer to follow their extravagancies in and out (step by step) in this dispute, but only show somewhat the insufficiency and absurdity of this pretence. LIII. This is proved absurd. We say then 1. That for other Holy days, besides the weekly Solemn day, they come not properly into this dispute, about the ordinary chief Time for Religion. They are 1. Extraordinary Days, of which kind the Jews also had some of Gods appointing, and some of their own, more than many Christian Churches have, though not so many as some others. Also 2. These are taken up without any such rule, as may either urge the conscience to judge them necessary; or conclude them together to be sufficient. Therefore 3. Also herein the Christian Churches greatly differ, which as we have argued before, must not be in the proportions of the chief solemn Time necessary and sufficient for all Christians. Likewise 4. No Church Reform, that hath retained Holy days, hath spoken fully and clearly about the Continuance of them, and how necessarily they are to be observed to Religion, and employed wholly in Religious duties or not. And so they come not properly into this dispute about the necessary chief Time for Religion. 2. Leaving these out, and considering the weekly solemn proportion, it was of old determined to the Jews in the fourth Commandment: One whole Day of seven. Both which (as well as the particular seventh Day, the Saturday Sabbath, which they pin to the Commandment: But we shall show their error in it hereafter,) our Adversaries make to be now abrogated by Christ, that is, both the number, one Day of seven, and the Continuance, one whole Day. Of both these, we must now argue the case with them; how upon the supposition of Gods making these void, they can find out a rule for the Christian Church to make a determination of the chief Time for Religion, for Frequency and Continuance. And first we must discourse of the Frequency, LIV. 1. With respect to the Frequency: For, the number of one Day in seven, which is from Christ's Time to this Day, observed and perpetuated among all Christians, by all confession. Some kept (as is said) more Days, but all kept the Lords day, the first Day of the Week; and so one Day in seven. Now the perpetuating of this number of one Day in seven, we say is by God's determination of the fourth Commandment still in force. They say, only by the Church's Authority, freely taking it up again, after it was made void. But against this we argue, That the Church having in their opinion, authority to choose another number, more Frequent one of 6. or 5. or more rare (though sometimes they deny this,) as one of 8. or 10. It cannot by any just reason be justified or excused in determining again one Day of seven, nor can any rule of wisdom plead for the observing of that number, if cast by, by God. But rather all things are against it, proclaiming, that that number of all other was the most unfit to be taken up again by the Christian Church, when as God had rejected it, upon so great an occasion as the Death of Christ, His Son, and our Saviour. And for this we have divers particular reasons. 1. What is this but expressly to cross the Wisdom of god? LV. 1. It is cross to the wisdom of God. who by His abrogation of this number, from being any more obligatory, hath manifested His dislike of the number, (whether as too often, or too seldom, or as typical, or for what ever other reason can be imagined or surmised;) The Church having power and authority to choose another number, there being still to be a revolution of Days for Religion, What could be more absurd, then to choose again this rejected disliked number? 2. LVI. 2. Th● particular seventh Day, may as well be reassumed. What can be alleged for the reassuming of the number of one Day in seven, and rejecting the particular seventh Day, if they were both alike Ceremonial and Typical, & so abrogated by Christ's Death? Or may not the particular Day be reassumed again, or any of other jewish Ceremonies, Circumcision, Sacrifices, difference of meat, as well as this number of one in seven? If this number be included within the reach of Gal. 4. Rom. 14. Col. 2. which lay level the Judaical days; How can it be retained, without contradicting those Texts? Or may not all the rest of the weak and beggarly elements and rudiments of the world be reassumed and maintained as well as this? If this be one of them? Is this the liberty Christ's death hath purchased, to give His Church leave to continue those Ordinances (any one of them) for so many hundred years, which He hath disannulled? and to continue them to the same purpose for which they were of old, (as this to be the number for the chief Time necessary and sufficient for all Christians) when they had choice enough besides? To bind Christians to that number again, by virtue of their Authority left them, to settle the weight of the Law of Nature, and continuing Morality of the fourth Commandment for a necessary and sufficient Time, when God and Christ had set them lose and free from it? For our parts, we can think no otherwise, but that this number is unlawful to be observed for the chief Time, if God have disannulled it; and that the Christian Church had sinned in all Ages, in determining or observing it. Which because we cannot believe, we doubt not but they believed themselves still bound to it by virtue of the fourth Commandment, and not of any new determination of the Church at any time; and so we believe ourselves, and all Christians still to be. LVII. 3. It hath been the cause of scandals to Christians. 3. The retaining or reassuming of this number hath apparently done hurt, by giving scandal to the Sabbatarians, pleading for the particular Jewish day to be still to be observed, as well as the number of one Day in seven. Also by giving scandal to us, (whom our Adversaries also, in courtesy, nickname Sabbatarians) misleading us into superstition, if we be misled, as they say we are, for urging the observation of this number, (and of the whole Day withal, as a Sabbath) by virtue of the fourth Commandment still in force; and so as necessary to Religion by God's command: Which neither the Saturday-Sabbatarians, nor we much less, could ever have dreamt of, or have pretended any thing for, no more then for the Jewish new moons, or other festivals, if the number had been altered to one Day of six, or of eight. How easily had this great and multiplied scandal been prevented? and how necessarily, upon the foregoing Reasons specially? Whereas grant the fourth Commandment perpetual for one Day of seven, upon just grounds; and though the Saturday-Sabbatarians stumble then at the particular Day, yet we doubt not but to remove that sufficiently; and God hath done it in His Word, as we shall show: though still some will stumble at most plain truths. But this the Church should prevent in her determinations; and is most justly blamed for not doing, upon the supposition that It might. For further— 4. If the Church had power to take one Day of six, LVIII. 4. It argues want of zeal in the Church not to determine so much or one Day of five, and determine that number in a Revolution for the chief solemn Time: Where hath been the ●eale of the Christian Church all this while, ever since our Saviour's time, that they have never pitched upon such a determination, as might have been remarkably advantageous in a year, and much more in a life, for the good of Souls, and so for the honour of God? Which had also taken away and prevented quite all the forementioned inconveniencies. Can never any General Council, or Nationall Church bethink themselves of this? But they must cling still to that most inconvenient and scandalous number? 5. If it be said, It was to comply somewhat with the Jews, LIX. 5. It is also scandalous to the Jews. that this number of one Day in seven was still retained. We answer, 1. That somewhat was nothing, since the particular Day was cast off, which the Jews still hold to, and blame as much the neglect of, as they could or would for altering the number. 2. Rather this is also a scandal to the Jews, that we Christians keep the number still, and reject the particular Day; which though it be not of importance unto those that know they have the will of God for keeping that, and rejecting this: 1 Cor. 10.32. yet it falls heavy upon those who unnecessarily scandalise even the Jews, by retaining this number of one Day in seven, and rejecting that particular Day; while yet they say, they were both together in the fourth Commandment, and are both now together abrogated, as are all the words of the fourth Commandment; and yet in the mean time, It, as well as any of the other ten, is written upon Church-walls, and read, and taught to children, and ignorants, even the very words of it. 3. If this number of one Day in seven had been a while retained for the Jews sake, yet it ought to have ceased long since. The old particular Day was retained a while, at least in public, among the Jews; and so were the forbearance of things strangled, and blood, (even ordained so) and Circumcision itself, and Sacrifices were practised a while; But after a while, all left; and by Divines called not only dead, but deadly. So by the same reason, after a while, a new number ought to have been taken up by the Christian Church, as is apparent a new particular Day was, even in full opposition to Judaisme; as upon this ground the Council of Laodicea anathematises those that should keep the old Jewish Day. So should it have been for the number, if it, as well as the other, had been merely Judaical, and both together cashiered by God. Let it be considered. 6. But we have yet one thing more to urge: [That looking to the number of old determined to the Jews, LX. 6. The old number can give no direction to the Church. if it be now made void, can afford the Christian Church no direction at all towards the settling of a new number.] For as much as, 1. there is no Argument sufficient to convince or satisfy a Conscience, whether that number was rejected by God, as too often a revolution, or too seldom. Themselves, in their Disputes, discourse ambiguously of it, and with their argumentations contradict themselves, (as it is usual for Errors to do.) One while they say, [The number may be oftener, but it may not be seldomer.] Another while they urge, [That it is a part of our Christian liberty, not to be tied to that number of seven.] But these destroy one another: For if we ought to have an oftener number, (as they also plead sometimes, because we are more beholden to God, than the Jews were, and freed from many other burdensome Ceremonies) where then is our Christian liberty? Are we not, in the particular, in more straits than the Jews? And by the Churches tying us again (as they say it hath) to the number of one in seven. Is not our Christian liberty infringed, it being liberty not to be tied to that number? Unless they will say, It is liberty not to be tied by God's express commandment of that number, and yet liberty still to be tied by the Church's command, who hath authority from God to determine the Morality of the fourth Commandment, and lay the strength even of the Law of Nature upon us for the number, which is to make it as necessary as ever. Contrarily, if it be Christian liberty, not to be tied to this number, than we ought not to be tied to a more frequent number, nor yet to the same number again, as we are. Some of these things we had before in a former Argument: But the nature of the thing in question did in a sort necessitate a repetition. Else we do not delight to burden the Readers with the same Notions again. 2. But suppose it were clearly certain, on which hand the scale should now weigh, to a number more frequent, upon the reason of our greater obligation to God, and greater means of grace to improve the Times to better purpose than they, (which our disputers also discourse by fits) or to a number less frequent, upon the reason of Christian Liberty: Yet now is there no rule to satisfy a doubting conscience, or convince a disputer, (though no wrangler) how near to the number of one in seven, the number should be kept and settled. For if it be one of three, or four: Or even three, or four, or five of seven; still here is the more for God and the soul. And if it be but one of ten, of twenty, of thirty, or a hundred, here is the more liberty; (such as it is, for we are not willing to call it Christian.) In a word, the seldomest number will hardly be proved necessary to those that offer to dispute the contrary: Or if it may, yet will it be as fare from appearing sufficient to a zealous or doubtful mind: nor indeed any number, how frequent so ever, that can be determined, can by any argument be demonstrated to be sufficient to such a conscience. Or if it be, than again, on the other side, it will be more impossible to prove it necessary to an unwilling or worldly mind. Either way, both ways, we are all altogether upon uncertainties; and so this old number of one Day in seven, determined to the jews, can stand us in no stead at all, toward the determination of the number for the chief Time now. 2. But we shall also be as much at a loss, if not more, LXI. 2. With respect to the Continuance, for a whole day: For, about the Continuance, In which we disagree most, and is (as we have oft intimated) the mainest thing in dispute which we plead for, and they most oppose. But if they come not home to us, and to the fourth Commandment for a whole Day, they will be farther to seek for a Rule to direct them and us in this determination then in the former. To which purpose; 1. We observe, 1. They do not express how much time is necessary and sufficient. that our disputers in this point of the Continuance (that is most of them) do not so much as offer to express, how near we Christians must necessarily, and may sufficiently, come to a whole Day's Continuance, which was determined to the Jews, and by them observed, when they made any conscience of the Commandment. Only they sometimes vouchsafe to grant, [That they do not sinne who observe the whole Day for Religion, rather that they do well and commendable] And now and then they even say, [They do best who so observe it.] But they will not yield that it must necessarily be so observed, (for this were to yield all) [That they say, is superstition to think, and judaizing, and tyranny to urge others unto.] 2. Nor can, if it be not for a whole day. 2. Therefore we make bold to u●ge them, to tell us at last, what Continuance of Time, on the Lords day is certainly necessary, and certainly sufficient: To convince the unwilling, to whom a very little while together is irksome and tedious; and to satisfy the godly, who may be apt to think, less than the whole Day too little? And that for all the pretence of Christian liberty, the respect to God's Honour, and their own souls good, (which undoubtedly concern Christians as much, at least as the Jews) The Continuance of a whole Day should have been kept, as well as the number of one Day in Seven. Let them venture upon any proportion of Continuance that they will, or can, and what can the example of a whole Day in the fourth Commandment direct them to, If they refuse a whole Day? Will they leave out, an hour at night, and as much in the morning? Or only at night? Or two hours? Or half an hour? How will they argue so much as they determine to be necessary, and not the rest which they leave out? Or how will they prove so much sufficient; and yet not to be more than necessary? Both ways they will be tossed from post to pillar, or between two rocks, either of which will suffice to split this assertion, whensoever they launch it forth. 3. Nor can they satisfy all with any determination. 3. Nor will they be able to help themselves, if we should grant them what we never must, because we have proved the contrary as of necessity to Religion, [That the Continuance of this chief Time is only to be extended to the public Worship.] And that if it be wisely determined for them, It is well enough determined for the chief Time of Religion. For even upon this supposition, take but the two hours (that the author of Sunday no Sabbath vouchsafes to name as the just allowance) or any other proportion more or less; And they shall never be able to avoid dashing either against the Scylla, of the unwilling, [That so much is not necessary] or against the charity of the zealous, [That so much is not sufficient.] And whatsoever they would put forth to save themselves from the one, will thrust them on the other. What necessity (will the one say) of so much Prayers, or Reading, or Singing, or so long Sermon? Specially when men's minds are upon the World, businesses or sports, which would detain them or call them off from the public, How shall such be convinced, that such a proportion is necessary? Here it must be remembered, that there is no help to be had, from any pretence of the Church's authority to command the proportion, for that we have already abundantly confuted. But we are now, upon the point of wisdom, by what Rule to make the necessary proportion, of which we say, there is none, nor can there be, to such as refuse a whole Day. Or if there should be somewhat imagined, yet then come the other, and they plead. [What sufficiency in so sudden or short a dispatch of the whole?] Specially since there is no Time determined wherein our souls can have liberty, (being servants, or men of business) after the public? Is not God worthy of more Time than thus? Are our souls of so little regard, that such a pittance once in a week should suffice them? Here again the Church's authority cannot be pretended: But we are upon a Rule of wisdom, which is not where to be found, no not for the public; if there be no more Time to be determined, but the public Time only. We foresee an objection concerning this, which we shall meet with anon in a place no less fit. 4. But this difficulty about the Continuance, 4. Unless there be Time sufficient, for family, and solitary worship. will be much more increased, when we tell our disputers again, [That the Continuance of our chief solemn Times, is not sufficient, if it extend not beyond the public, even to family Worship where it may be had; and infallibly to solitary Worship, both before and after the public, for preparation for it, and improvement of it; and further gain in spiritual matters besides] as we have formerly proved at large. And then what can satisfy, that such a proportion (as is less than the whole of that Day) is sufficient for the chief Time for Religoin? They cannot deny, but it is as possible for us to observe a whole Day as it was for the Jews; themselves confess we have more helps than they, clearer Scriptures, a greater measure of Grace poured on Christians. They acknowledge also, it is not a sin to observe a whole Day, but lawful, commendable, best. How then can less than the whole be sufficient to be determined for the Continuance? What rule or reason can abate any of it? and if any, how much? And how is it demonstrated then, that so much is necessary and no more, and so much sufficient and no less? Is it not strange that the Church should have (if the Church have done it, as they say) retained the number of one in seven, which there is nothing for in nature and reason: but all against it, being made void by Christ: And refuse the Continuance of a whole day, for which there is so much even in nature, and nothing rational against it; nor for any other proportion of Continuance imaginable so much as for it? We doubt not then to say, that all is impossible to be satisfied by any thing they can allege; and that while they deny God's determination perpetual for one whole Day's Continuance in the Frequency of seven, expressed in the fourth Commandment, [They bring themselves (and all that adhere to their opinion) into an inextricable labyrinth of uncertainty and confusion.] Hitherto we have oppugned the Church's determination of the necessary sufficient chief solemn Time for Religion, and withal, all other men's, both in point of authority; and in point of wisdom; and by both have asserted it to God alone. But for its belonging only to God, as also the particular Day for it, we have yet some other arguments behind; which we must also produce for the further propugnation of our position, and so a complete discharge of all men from pretending to it any more. Our next argument proceeds in this manner. LXII. The second general: It belongs to God alone, to determine the chief time. Aug. 1. This is the scope of one Commandment of the decalogue. [If it be the general meaning, or part of the general meaning of a Commandment, of the decalogue, that these Times, and those only should be observed as necessary to Religion which are appointed by God Himself: Then the Determination of the chief Time necessary to Religion for all men, belongs to God alone and His peculiar appointment. But it is the general meaning or part of the general meaning of a Commandment of the decalogue: That these Times and these only should be observed as necessary to Religion, which are appointed by God Himself: Ergo, The Determination of the chief Time necessary to Religion for all men, belongs to God alone, and His peculiar appointment.] The Consequence of this argument cannot reasonably be denied. The general meaning and scope of every Commandment of the decalogue, is without controversy perpetual and moral. Our Adversaries every where speak to that purpose, when they fly from the words of the fourth Commandment to a general meaning and moral equity, and the like; Which sometimes they make to be sufficient Time (to be determined by the Church) and usually, Public Worship. That neither of these is it, we shall prove hereafter. But we take in the mean Time their grant of a general meaning moral and perpetual, Though this be no great liberality of theirs: For it is no more than they (and all Divines besides) usually ascribe to the Festival Sabbaths which are in their particularities undeniably ceremonial. And usually also even all the rest of the ceremonials (and so of the judicials too) are acknowledged to have some general morality in them, which is perpetual. Now this general meaning & moral scope, we are speaking of, restraining all Times necessary to Religion, to Gods own appointment, it doth by a sure inference, from the general to the particular, restrain the chief Time necessary to Religion for all men, to God's appointment, and peculiar determination, infallibly. The Antecedent, that such is the general meaning, or part of the general meaning of a Commandment of the decalogue, we thus make good. Namely by a twofold instance of sin charged upon the observation of Times appointed by men as necessary to Religion. 1. The Scripture charges upon jeroboam sin for determining to Israel, and so observing a Feast like the Feast that was in judah. That in judah was the Feast of Tabernacles appointed on the fifteenth day of the seventh: jeroboam was on the fifteenth day of the eighth month; The month (saith the text, De cord suo mentitus est. Pet. Mart. in Locun pag. 95. noting thereby his sin) which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel (1 Kings 12.32, 33.) so making it necessary to Religion among them, as the Feast in judah; appointed by God, unquestionably was, So then his fact is plainly condemned to be sin. Now every sin is a transgression of the law, of some commandment or other of God: either of a particular command, concerning the particular fact, or some general command, within the general meaning, of some or other of the Commandments of the decalogue. But against this particular fact or day of jeroboams, there was no particular command forbidding it; It must then be a transgression of the general meaning of some Commandemnet of the decalogue, or part of the general meaning of some Commandment restraining all Times necessary to Religion to Gods own peculiar appointment, which is the thing to be proved. 2. Another instance may be, That our Divines usually charge sin upon the Papists for their Holidays, not only as some of them are Idolatrous, being intended to the honour of Saints and Angels, and so to the worship of Creatures; or as their number is excessively burdensome to the common sort; But as superstitious, as they make all of them matters of necessity to Religion, upon the Church's command; and so their Canonical hours to some men: which, we say, only the command of God can do. Now if these Days and Hours thus determined and observed as necessary to Religion, be sin in them; It must also be against some commandment of God: Particular command there is none, forbidding those Days and Hours to be observed as necessary to Religion. It must then be against a general commandment, against the general meaning, or part of the general meaning of some Commandment of the Decalogue. Importing those Days and Times to be only necessary to Religion, which God himself appoints. Which is our Antecedent to be proved. LXIII. An Exception answered. If now our Disputers, or any for them, say, That the Papists sin is not against any Commandment of the Decalogue, but against the New Testament; which making all Days and Times equal now, allows none to be appointed or observed as necessary Sol. 1 to Religion. To this we answer many things— 1. This Exception reaches only the second instance of the Papists sin in appointing and observing their superstitious Holidays, and Canonical hours, as necessary to Religion: and touches not the former sin of Jeroboams devised Festival; which must needs be against some Commandment of the Decalogue, not only for his rejecting the Feast-day appointed by God, (which is not mentioned in the Text, though it may be gathered from thence) but for his positive ordaining a day by his own authority, as necessary to Religion: And this were sufficient to prove our Antecedent Sol. 2 alone, if the other instance were not. 2. We suppose (and so do some of our Adversaries, if not all of them, specially the foreign Divines) that all the practical precepts of the New Testament are reducible to the generall-meaning of some or other of the Commandments of the Decalogue; and that the Decalogue is the sum and substance of all Gods Moral and Perpetual Law. And if any would deny it, we think it may be evinced by the Decalogues being called originally and emphatically, and every where, The Covenant, and the Testimony: and from thence the Tables in which it was written, The Tables of the Covenant, and the Tables of the Testimony: and the sacred Ark wherein it was kept, The Ark of the Covenant, and the Ark of the Testimony. Which titles, what can they note, but that therein was contained the whole sum and substance of God's Covenant with His people, and the whole Testimony of His will toward them, in reference to what He would have them do, or not do, in all Ages to come. And so generally all Divines that expound by way of Comment or Sermons, the Decalogue, do include within the compass of the Commandments of it (of one or other) all Gods Moral and Perpetual Law, even the Moralities of the Judicial's and Ceremonials, and all; and so bring all sins to be within the compass of the prohibitions contained in one or other of the Commandments. Whence it follows that the making of Times necessary to Religion, which God hath not appointed, being sin, both of old, as appears in jeroboam, and now in the Papists; It must be against a Commandment of the Decalogue, as was said before. And so still our Antecedent stands firm, & our whole Argument with it. 3. Whatever might be said of other sins (in the Papists, or any) Sol. 3 yet this appears to be against a Moral and Perpetual Law within the Decalogue; For being, in jeroboam, against a Commandment of the Decalogue, and the sin being the same in the Papists, the general meaning is declared to be Perpetual and Moral in either Age of the Church, in the Old Testament, and in the New; Namely, [That those Times, and those only, are to be observed as necessary to Religion, which God himself appoints.] The Papists sin therefore is properly against a Commandment of the Decalogue, whatever the New Testament say against it besides. And this is as much as our Antecedent says, or our Argument needs. It is to no purpose then to allege, that the Papists transgress against the New Testament, unless there had been no such sin at all under the Old Testament. 4. Besides all this, we must tell them that their Assertion, [That Sol. 4 the New Testament makes all Days and Times equal now, and allows none at all to be observed as necessary to Religion,] is a false and fallacious assertion, if understood generally, as we shall expressly and fully show in the next Chapter, where we shall take that Position to task, and answer what they bring to prove it: Mean time, we say in a word, 1. that we having already in the former chap. proved a necessity of the determination of a chief Time necessary to Religion for all men; they apparently beg the question, if they only answer, that there is now no Times necessary to Religion: And so in stead of answering our Argument, which proceeds on that supposition, they wholly pervert the state of the question now between us. 2. That this Assertion of theirs is expressly contradictory (as we conceive) to their own Tenets, so often set down in their Books, [That some sufficient Times, a Day, or Days, to be observed and even determined for Religion, is Morall-Naturall:] that is, necessary to Religion for all men by the Law of Nature. How they will reconcile these two, let them consider, till we have leisure to speak more of it in the promised place. LXIV. A Question answered. If any now ask, What Commandment we mean all this while, within whose general meaning this is which we have spoken of? We answer, 1. If we could not assign directly and certainly the particular Commandment; yet would the thing, upon the foregoing grounds, be no less certain; There being divers other matters which are undoubtedly within the Decalogue, about which Divines differ, in what Commandment they are; as appears by comparing the Expositions of the Commandments in almost any two Authors. 2. Yet we say, that for our parts, we suppose, [That this is properly belonging to the fourth Commandment, and is indeed the whole and entire general meaning thereof.] The words proclaim, That the object of the Commandment is Time necessary for Religion, and God's honour. And therefore we are persuaded, that the general meaning and scope of it is as we have expressed, [That those Times, and those only, should be observed as necessary to Religion, which God himself appoints.] And so, though we prove (as we doubt not but we shall in the next Part) [That the words of the 4 th'. Commandment are only for one whole Day in seven, and not for the particular Day of the seven, last or first▪] Yet the particular Day (both of old the seventh in order from the creation, and now the first of the seven) come within the compass of the fourth Commandment, within this general meaning, because they were appointed by God, though elsewhere, and not in the formal words of the Commandment. And so also the other Jewish Festivals appointed by God, shall properly belong to the same fourth Commandment, falling under the general meaning mentioned. And indeed they are usually by Divines reduced thither; Who yet can no ways defend their assigning them to that (predicament or) place, if this be not assigned to be the general meaning of the fourth Commandment. 3. Yet if any will not admit this, than we say, we know not how they will be able to deny, but that this is, [Though not the whole, yet a part of the general meaning of the second Commandment:] Which under the prohibition of Worshipping God by an Image, and promise of a blessing to them that keep His Commandments, (namely that Worship Him with that Worship, that He hath commanded) carries this general meaning certainly, [That God should be Worshipped with those things, and actions, and those only, which Himself hath appointed.] And so, as under this, all the Ceremonial Worship of Old, Sacrifices, and other Rites and Laws belonging to God's Worship; and our two Sacraments now are comprised; (and so the prohibition of all superstition and will-worship invented by men) by the usual vote of Divines, and cannot indeed come properly under any other. So, the observation of any Times as necessary to Religion, and God's Worship, and of those Times and those only, as so necessary which God Himself appoints, must needs fall under the same General meaning of the second Commandment, if it belong not peculiarly to the fourth, as was said before. And perhaps how ever, if an exact inquiry be made into the Latitudes of the Commandments of the first Table, they will all be found in an subordination, the latter more particular than the former, and partly at least included in it. Undoubtedly the first, concludes with in it the three latter, even all the second Table also; and we think the second contains some part of the third, and fourth also; and again that the third, doth contain part of the fourth; namely the manner of the observation of the holy Time, that it be not in vain, etc. But we leave this Notion to the judicious Readers consideration, and maintain our Argument sufficiently without it, whether the general Law about Time we are now scanning, be in the fourth, or part of the second, or even belong to the first, (as so much as is Moral Natural difinitely, concerning Time for Religion, we have formerly asserted to be within the first Commandment) still as long as it is within the Decalogue our cause is safe. And if it be referred to the second Commandment, than we shall have gained this particular advantage certainly, and clearly (though we suppose we shall anon prove, it will follow from any of the rest of the Commandments of the first Table, within which it unquestionably comes;) That then the necessary Times of Religion, and God's Worship are not merely circumstances or adjuncts of Worship; but proporly parts of Worship, and are to be observed as parts of Worship;] as all other specialties of the second Commandment are. But we must now proceed to another Argument in our present business. Thus we frame it— LXV. Arg 2. All Time is Gods to dispose of. [If all Time is Gods, and none mens own for worldly business but by God's indulgence, Then the determination of the necessary sufficient chief solemn Time for Religion, cannot belong to men but it is Gods own peculiar: But all Time is Gods, and none mens own for worldly business; but by God's indulgence. Ergo, The determination of the necessary sufficient chief solemn Time for Religion, cannot belong to men but is Gods peculiar.] The Antecedent cannot reasonably be denied by any conscience that acknowledges God, the Creator of all men, and all Time, and so the undoubted, and absolute Sovereign and Lord of all; and that considers that, even the most necessary worldly Times, as for sleeping, eating, and the like, are not otherwise, Ours but by His indulgence, granted indeed in Nature ordinarily, and so manifested sufficiently by the Light of Nature. Yet can it not be denied, but even these Times are still subject to His pleasure which may make exceptions against them, as indeed He sundry times doth: enjoining men (as we formerly noted) by His providence (and by general Rules of His Word) to watch whole Nights and Days; and to Fast likewise, in Religious references to Him, and their own, and others souls, to perform solemn and extraordinary Duties of piety and charity; and sometimes even with respect to the bodily lives and comforts of themselves or others. Moreover, it cannot again be denied, but if it pleased Him, He might command men altother to forbear their meat, and wait upon Him for a miraculous preservation, (like that of Moses and Elias, and our blessed Saviour, for whole forty Days, and forty Nights together, and as it shall be with us all eternally in Heaven;) and even appoint men to die, for very want of meat or sleep; rather than intermit, or interrupt their solemn attendances upon Him. So that it is every way clear [That no Time at all is ours for any worldly business, but by God's indulgence,] which is our Antecedent of the present argument. Now for the Consequence, that thence it follows, LXVI. Confirmed by 4 reasons. [That the determination of the necessary sufficient chief solemn Time for Religion, is Gods own peculiar, and belongs not to men.] This, we suppose, will be manifest, by considering, 1. That the determination of this Time for Religion, doth in the Nature of it, carry along an allotment of the residue of men's Time mianly for worldly businesses. (We say, mainly, because still, according to what hath been before discoursed, God in the very Law of Nature, calls for some Times every Day, even out of the work-days; besides all extraordinary Times for Religion; but the determination of the chief Time for Religion being set, the residue is mainly for worldly businesses, even allotted to them by that very determination of such Time, as sufficient ordinarily for the chief Time to Religion.) 2. Therefore to ascribe to men the determination of this chief sufficient Time to Religion, is to ascribe to them the allotment of their own Time for worldly businesses: As contrarily to ascribe to God the allotment of men's Times for their worldly businesses, is to ascribe to Him, the determination of this sufficient chief Time for Religion. 3. Now that it is not in men, but in God (not only originally, which the Adversaries cannot deny, though perhaps they think not enough of it, nor speak enough of it; but also Practically) to allot to men the main Time for their worldly businesses, (whether they be Inferiors, or Superiors, Pagans or Christians, worldly or godly) may be made good by four Demonstrations, as we conceive them to be, drawn from the Light both of Nature and Scripture. Although we cannot here forbear to say, (and refer to the Readers to judge what cause we have for it) [That our disputers in this whole controversy about religious Time, seem absolutely to be of the mind; that however all Time be originally Gods, and He may still challenge what He pleases by an express Law; Yet in practice, He hath rather given over Time into men's hands; and made all Time ours, rather than His own] (except only what He challenged from the Jews by express Law) even from the beginning of the world, and so since the Gospel, referring to men (the superiors at least among them) the allotment of their own Times for their worldly businesses; and consequently they to allot to Him back again, (and to their souls) some pittances to be spent in religious Duties, according to their affections and discretions; there being only General remembrances, and Rules in Scriptures of not neglecting God, and their Souls, but none obligatory, descending to particular proportions, dividing between worldly businesses and Religion. Now this kind, of making all Time ours chiefly and principally for worldly businesses; We take to be their capital and fundamental Error, in the whole dispute about the Sabbath and Lordsday. And cannot sufficiently wonder how it should settle in the minds of considerate Divines. But the greatness of the Error of this conceit, we hope to represent to all Readers; and even to our disputers own consciences by these four Arguments following. LXVII. 1. Otherwise no Time should be Gods, but by man's indulgence. 1. Is not this to reduce all Time from being Gods originally, and none ours for worldly business but by His indulgence; to no Time being Gods practically, but by men's indulgence, as we may say? And again all inferiors Times for their Souls, to be neither at God's appointment, nor their own dispose, but at their superiors; (how profane and godless so ever) and by their indulgence? Which although we grant, that if God had any where said in His Word, expressly, or by undeniable consequence, [I will leave all Times to you, and so I did before Moses his Time to all mankind.] There had been no reasoning against it, nor finding fault with it; Yet without any such syllable or shadow (either in the New or Old Testament) of leave, and General indulgence from God, to conceit and conclude thus, [Our Times to be generally ours,] We cannot but judge a high presumption; not paralleled by any child or servant among men towards their Masters, or Parents; who further than they can plead their superiors allowance of such Times for themselves, dare not challenge, any Days or Hours as theirs; and much less the principal of their Time to be their own; and their attendances on their superiors, to be but when, and how long, and how often they themselves, (who are inferiors) do or shall appoint, or tender voluntarily. Even retainers, though no ordinary servants, have some set Times, by their superiors appointment, to present themselves, and all is not merely at their discretion. And we are sure, we are, or should be, more than retainers to God. 2. LXVIII. 2. Else man should be his own end, even in worldly respects. To assert Time to be generally Ours (without express general indulgence from God) for worldly businesses, is it not to savour too strongly, of [Making man, even in worldly respects, and as employed in worldly businesses the principal end of man] that is, man himself to be the end of his own being, even in an earthly consideration, and not God? And again, superiors among men, to be the principal end of their inferiors being, and not God? (much less the souls of the one, or the other, which are poor contemptible things, and very seldom mentioned by our disputers in all their discourses about necessary and sufficient Times?) and so Religion, God's Honour, and men's Souls, as mean and secondary things, of an inferior Nature, to have no other Times, than what men can spare (or determine to spare) from their worldly businesses and pleasures, &c: And so notwithstanding, that God, took an other order with His Jewish Church, exacting from them for Himself (and their souls together) a weekly Sabbath, besides sundry other Times: Yet to imply, there was no need of His doing any such thing either before or since, Notwithstanding man's fall, and all men's corruption (even under the Gospel) and their misdevotion, to Religion, and their own, and others souls good; but all Times to be referred to men wholly, to give bacl what they should think fit unto Religion, like a poor secondary inferior, indifferent matter, as we said before? Which how repugnant it is to the high honour of Almighty God, our Sovereign Lord, and Creator, and to the welfare and dignity of men's eternal Souls, We dare appeal to the very Light of Nature, even before a Pagan Judge, deliberately pronouncing, and according to those undeniable principles of God's Sovereignty, and the Souls immortality. LXIX. 3. Scripture seems to leave very little to men's worldly businesses. 3. But we believe, we shall put it past a reply, specially, by taking into consideration, some general sentences of Scripture, which call for so much Time for Religion, and so often, and with such Arguments; as seem to leave then so little for worldly businesses; as the wisest among men cannot tell which way to satisfy those sentences, and his worldly occasions both; unless he have the help, of a particular indulgence from God, for so much, and so often Time ordinarily for His worldly businesses; which expressly, as we said, involves Gods particular determination of the chief Time for Religion, necessary and sufficient for the chief Time, and so a division of every Time (or the main part of it) distinctly between Himself, and worldly matters. Consider, we say, the great Commandment [To Love God with all our hearts, with all our souls, with all our minds, with all our strengths. (And how love commands the Time every one hath to employ, specially such a high love as this.) On the other side, the charge, of not loving the World, nor the things that are in the World; and that upon this ground, If any man love the World, the love of the Father is not in him. (Such an one hath not a jot of love to God; so fare is he from loving him with all his heart, and strength, as before) again the precept of Christ is, not to labour for the meat that perishes, but for the meat that endures to eternal Life, (doth not this call for our Time for the Soul, much beyond the Body, and worldly matters?) Also lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, but in heaven: And set not your affections, on things on the earth, saith the Apostle; They are enemies to the Cross of Christ, and their end is destruction, who mind earthly things; To be carnally minded is death: And he that sows to the flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption; our Saviour seems to go yet further, when He allows not to take thought so much as for the morrow, even what we shall eat, or drink, or wherewith we shall be clothed, but to seek first the Kingdom of God, and speaks of praying always, and so doth His Apostle often, even of praying without ceasing, and continuing in prayer, and watching thereunto with all perseverance:] And many more such like places. All which though we abundantly acknowledge, that they must not be interpreted strictly according to the express letter and phrase of them. For than they would wholly shut out all worldly businesses, and turn us altogether into an angelical manner of devotion, and to wait for miraculous sustentations (as we touched before,) which crosses divers other sentences of Scripture, ordering about worldly businesses; and particularly charging Servants to be diligent in their earthly Master's work; Yet for all that, they do undeniably prefer in dignity, and commend to all men's care, the honour of God, and the respect to men's souls, to be attended upon in Religious duties, above the respect that men are allowed to have to the world, or worldly matters, or even their bodily lives. And this would necessitate undeniably the greatest part of every man by far, if there were no particular indulgence of such proportions, to be (ordinarily and for the main of them) allotted by God Himself, to our worldly occasions. For it would be nothing to say, in general, LXX. An Exception answered. God hath allowed me Time for worldly businesses; and appointed me (by His providence) to such a worldly employment of a lawful kind, and profitable for men; and it is not possible for the generality of mankind to subsist without miracle, (which God now allows not to expect, and it were to tempt him, to expect any, in a neglect of a worldly calling,) unless the greatest part of men's Time be employed about worldly businesses, and so it is necessary, that the greatest part of Time be so allotted and determined. For to all this, Sol. from the sentences forecited, an invincible reply might be made. God hath commanded, His own service and the good of men's souls to be looked after, as matters of infinitely more absolutely necessity, to look after them: We say, first, and far above the other, in a manner wholly rejecting and forbidding the other in comparison of these; and the necessities of the soul (as was in part urged before) cannot, according to reason, be satisfied with less than the greatest part of our Time: (or even with less than all) And in the comparison, between the soul and the body, earth and heaven, this world, and that to come for eternity; These alleged Texts do incomparably prefer the soul, heaven, eternity, the world to come, as the things to be loved, cared for, pursued, waited upon; and so the greatest part of Time (to be sure) must be allotted to Religion for these ends, unless we say, a particular indulgence of God Himself, and so a particular ditermination of a sufficient chief Time for Religion be to be found and acknowledged. Here than we appeal again to the consciences of all that will consider God, and men's souls in one balance, and men's worldly businesses in another: How hath the Christian Church dared to take six Days ordinarily, to themselves, and leave God but one of seven? how hath it dared to take six days ordinarily for the world, and leave but one of seven for the souls of men? We add, how dare our disputers quarrel with that one Day of seven? and scarcely yield to the number, but only from custom? but specially quarrel with our challenge of the whole Day for God and men's souls, as though it were too much; and a heavy yoke, which Christ must die to free us from? We ask them, how can they, or any conscience say, so much, so often is enough? Sufficient for the chief Time, but by God's indulgence in the fourth Commandment of six Days (ordinarily and for the main) for worldly businesses? And what could Adam or any of the Patriarches even according to the law and light of nature, without such indulgence particularly expressed to them, conclude, lawful for them to employ in worldly businesses, and count the residue sufficient for God and their souls? For those sentences named, though recorded in the New Testament; yet cannot be denied to be dictates of the very law of nature, in Adam's heart, and all others, that acknowledge a God to be worshipped, and souls to be immortal. Who then might dare of old, (or may now be so hardy) to take six Days of seven for worldly occasions, or five, or four, or three, or two, or one of seven without out Gods express leave? and where is there any such leave but in the fourth Commandment, and the parallel places to it, Gen. 2. and elsewhere? Let our Disputers now turn themselves which way they will or can, we cannot for our parts imagine, how they can wind themselves out of the cords of this argument: But that instead of one Day in seven for Religion, and six of seven for the world, we must rather yield God and our souls six of seven, (or more, even all) than rest in such a scanty proportion, and give the world so much; but by virtue of the Indulgence in the fourth Commandment, which without all question cannot be longer lived than the Commandment itself; let them consider it, and tell us their minds when they are resolved of an answer: Mean while, LXXI. 4. There is a blessing of God required, to make any proportion of Time sufficient. we entreat them to take a fourth consideration along with them, or a further confirmation (as we may call it) of this last, though it hath somewhat distinct, as will appear. For— 4. Besides the Commands requiring the mainest part of our Time for Religion, and God, as we have seen; There is to be considered [a Blessing, necessary to make any proportion (and distribution) of Time, less than all, to be sufficient for men's souls.] And this we are put in mind of by the very first mention of Gods determining a particular Time, Gen. 2. under the term of Blessing: which also the Commandment emphatically repeats, and Esay particularly comments upon, as we shall see. We say, whatsoever Time is taken out of the whole, and allotted by Indulgence to worldly business, doth not (nor cannot) leave the residue, how great soever the proportion be, sufficient for men's souls, but by virtue of special blessing upon that proportion of Time which is determined for souls, be it more or less. And this Blessing coming only from God, the determined proportion must be also from Him for Religion, which of itself gives assurance of an answerable blessing according to the intendment of that Time, even though there should be no distinct mention of a Blessing; which yet (as we said) God hath annexed to His determination of a Weekly Sabbath for the chief Time for Religion, even from the beginning. But without such express and particular determination from God, (or an express promise of Blessing on the proportion which men, or the Church shall determine, whatever it be; which is not where to be found in Scripture:) We have no manner of ground to conceit a Blessing on any proportion of Time that can be determined by men for Religion, to make that sufficient for men's souls. A Blessing, we say, beyond the proportion of that which might be expected from so long and so often attendance on Religion; a multiplying Blessing, in the nature of Christ's blessing the five loaves, and two fishes, to feed more (by many) then the natural proportion could possibly give hopes of. So that the attendance on God one Day in seven (which is the Time in question) shall be blessed beyond an ordinary Day's service, (if it were not specially appointed by God) and have a stronger influence on all the other six Days of the Week following, then could be expected from so much Time spent in Religion, simply considered, as so much Time. And without such a Blessing, (upon the consecrated solemn Time) the soul would still be lean, hungry, and even starve for want of a sufficient proportion of Time, by reason of its manifold continual necessities, faintings, decays, and temptations. So that whatever our Adversaries dispute against the Commandment of God, we conceive they dispute against their own participation of a Blessing upon whatsoever Time is determined and observed by men, themselves or others; And that a certainer Blessing may be rested on, in the observation of one Day in seven, as from God's determination, then in two Days in seven, three Days, nay six Days in seven, at man's appointment. For here still would be uncertainty, whether this proportion were sufficient: But God's command (which in all His Ordinances hath eternally a Blessing annexed to the right observers) is sure and certain to convey a Blessing, and make a sufficiency for the chief Time; in which Consciences may abundantly rest and satisfy themselves. And this we are fully persuaded, God meant to signify to us, when, Gen. 2. at the first mention of His consecrating a solemn Time, He saith, [The Lord blessed the seventh Day, and sanctified it.] A Day, (or any other such creature) is capable of no other Blessing, then to be made a means of Blessing to the right users of it according to God's command. And observe, that because God saw, that the encouragement of a Blessing was greatly necessary in this matter, He saith not, [the Lord sanctified the seventh Day, and blessed it; But, the Lord blessed and sanctified:] First blessed, and then sanctified. Though we cannot tell how to conceive the Blessing, without the Sanctification going before, or at least concurrent: yet God to show more abundantly his goodness and graciousness both in challenging this proportion to himself of one Day in seven, and allowing by His indulgence six Days of seven for worldly occasions, He puts the Blessing foremost; and so He doth also remarkably in the fourth Commandment: where having expressly allowed the indulgence of six Days for worldly work; after He had challenged a seventh Day for a Sabbath for Himself, He repeats His own example of six Day's work, and then His blessing a Sabbath (a seventh Day) and sanctifying it. Why so? but to assure us, that a happy Blessing should attend the conscionable observation of this Sabbath of one Day in seven, that though it were so little a proportion, yet it should be ordinarily sufficient for the chief Time; And all the six Days between the revolutions of this Sabbath one Day in seven, should taste of the good gotten on that Day; The strength of it lasting in men's souls from Sabbath to Sabbath, (with a little of each Day besides, as was said formerly:) and they should by it principally grow in grace, and spiritual comfort in God towards eternal life; notwithstanding all their ordinary and great interruptions of worldly businesses on the Working Days. And upon this, we have, as it seems to us, LXXII. The Text of Isa. 56.2. expounded. the Evangelical Prophet Isa. a clear & pertinent commentator & interpreter (as we touched before) and that in two Chapters of his Prophecy, towards the latter end; where he is much, if not altogether, upon the Times of the Gospel. Let us see what he saith to our purpose, c. 56. & 58. In the former place, calling all sorts to God's Covenant, and particularly to the observation of the Sabbath, he gins with [Blessed is the man that doth this, and the son of man that lays hold on it, that keeps the Sabbath from polluting it, v. 2.] Then encouraging the Eunuches, though persons under a kind of legal curse in those days, to this observation; he promiseth them from God, [an everlasting name, (better then of sons and of daughters) a name which should not be cut off:] that is, a spiritual blessing on their souls, and an owning them for His true and faithful servants, v. 3, 4, 5. And again, encouraging the strangers (the Heathen, outwardly as yet without the Covenant of Grace) to come in, and sanctify the Sabbath; he promises (in God's name) [That they should be made joyful in God's house of Prayer, and their services accepted by Him, v. 3, 6, 7.] So that spiritual comfort in God, and His gracious acceptation of their services, is the blessing promised to the faithful observance of this Time appointed by God for the chief solemn Time of His Worship. Neither can this be eluded by our Disputers, (as they offer to Except. 1 throw off all the places of the Old Testament) by saying, that this Except. 2 was typical of Christ, and our spiritual rest in Him from sin; or else that it belonged only to the seventh-day Sabbath, which the Jews observed; and so either way (and both ways) we have nought to do with it. For we have proved sufficiently, Solut. that a solemn proportion of Time determined for Religion, for the necessary and sufficient chief Time, (as the Weekly Sabbath than was undeniably) is no typical matter, but a substantially-necessary thing to Religion, and that there is need of a Blessing upon such Time, whatever the proportion be, (unless it were all our Time) or else it will not be sufficient. And so the Blessing here cannot be to the Sabbath in any typical respect; but as that proportion of Time determined by God for the chief Time for Religion, His worship, and men's souls. Inst. And though they may happen to object the mention of Gods accepting of their offerings and sacrifices upon His Altar, which, Sol. if referoed to our Times, must needs be meant typically. 1. This will not hurt our interpretation of this place, since the difference is apparent enough, between His calling for the observation of that which is so substantially necessary (in the kind of it) to Religion; that is, either this Proportion determined for the chief Time, or some other; and that which is plainly a figure and a type, as all offerings and material sacrifices were, Of which kind there are now none such under the Gospel. So that in this the Prophet only speaks in the language of the present time, that while sacrifices were offered and burnt upon God's altar, by the conscientious observers of His Sabbath, according to His command; those services should be accepted; and after they were ceased, their spiritual services of prayers and thanksgivings, which are in stead of them under the Gospel. Like unto that of David, Psal. 51. who first saith, God would have no sacrifices from him, but a broken and contrite heart: yet afterward he saith, God would accept young bullocks from him, Sol. 2. v. ult. And as for the seventh Day they urge so much, we deny the emphasis to lie at all upon that, (though it were the particular Day then to be observed) but wholly upon the Proportion, though taking in that seventh Day, because then in being, and then only commanded by God. But we have showed our grounds of difference, enough, between these two, in point of substance and necessity to Religion, one Day in seven, and that seventh Day. And what needs more to be said, we shall add, when hereafter we shall come to show (as we have promised it, and are forced to repeat it, oftener than we would) that the seventh Day was not directly commanded in the words of the fourth Commandment, nor at all as the substance and particular matter of them. But only within the general scope, as then appointed by God (elsewhere) and so our Lordsday comes equally within it, and is now become successor to it in the particular title to the Blessing, as we shall see. So that this place stands good for our having a Blessing on God's determined Time, His Sabbath, observed both by Jew and Christian. The other place is Isa. 58. Where, LXXIII. Another text, Isa. 58.13. expounded. after he had called to a most careful observation of the Sabbath, both negative and affirmative, and that both outwardly in deed and word, and inwardly in thought, v. 13. he promises in God's name a remarkable spiritual Blessing, v. 14. [Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord:] that is, God will so afford thee His divine Blessing upon thy conscionable employment, with joy and cheerfulness, (calling the Sabbath a delight) of that Day of God's solemn appointment for the chief Time of His worship; that all the week after thou shalt find a delight in the Lord; thou shalt have a heart oft to think of Him even in the midst of thy worldly businesses; and to redeem Time also ever now and then from thy worldly businesses, to converse voluntarily with Him, and be glad of all opportunities so to do; not willingly missing any time any day, when thou canst have freedom to converse with Him, and attend upon Him. And that this is the meaning of this Promise and Blessing, (understanding it Evangelically, and not to an absolute perfection of delight in God, in this world, which is not to be found in sinful man:) We desire no other proof, than the Consciences of Christians that keep the Lords day as God's Sabbath by Him commanded; and their very manifestation of it in the eyes of their very adversaries: Namely, that such as delight in the strict and exact observation of the Sabbath, do answerably delight (or seem at least to delight) in conversing with God at other times, and every Day gladly wait upon God some time, morning and night, even they and their families too, and at extraordinary times: they delight to hear and pray publicly, and to converse with Christians in a spiritual manner privately, and to attend upon God by themselves alone, when they can get leisure: Which is, (unless men will say, that all such are wilful and gross Hypocrites) a real Comment upon this Promise of the Prophet of delighting in God, increased in men by the Sabbaths observation. And on the contrary, it is more than evident, that the most of those that make no conscience of the Sabbath, of the Lords day, do express very little or no delight in God, or any true spiritual converse with Him, at any other Time; They care little for any other Opportunity of hearing His word; they worship Him, not at all, or seldom, or very slightly with their families; and less perhaps (if the truth were known) in their own solitary devotions. In a word, the one sort, though God's commandment and indulgence together, satisfy them, that one Day in seven is ordinarily sufficient for the chief Time for God and their souls, yet they cannot satisfy themselves, their consciences towards God, nor their long after Him, unless they besides both daily and extraordinarily redeem what Time they can possibly, or at least conveniently, redeem to wait upon Him, and satiate their souls more and more in enjoying a spiritual converse with Him, like a friend, or lover, whose felicity is to be with the party loved as much and often as may be. The other sort, though they have no ground to think that Time sufficient, (not regarding the Commandment) yet they hardly or not at all allow it in their minds, to be necessary; specially not the whole Day in any wise; but even scarcely the public hours of it, and much less do they think any other Times to be necessary, or scarcely so much as convenient to be ordinarily bestowed upon Religion, as not delighting in God; and so the Time they attend upon Him, is rather a Penance then a delight, a torment then a comfort to them. As their language and carriage do more then enough proclaim. The blessing then of this Text, is happy, and clear also, as we suppose. Let Consciences judge. LXXIV. An exception answered. But ere we part with this last place, besides the former cavil of a typical, mystical, or spiritual sense; and that seventh Day-Sabbath, (which from the former answer may be sufficiently satisfied, considering still the nature of the chief solemn Time,) we must not miss taking notice, that some even of our Orthodox Divines, in point of the Sabbath, do interpret this place Esay. 58. of a Fast which they say hath the nature of a Sabbath, (and indeed the yearly fast of God's appointment, Leu. 23. the Day of Expiation, is called a Sabbath,) and they give this reason, that in the beginning of the Chapter the Prophet speaks of a Fast, and so they judge he doth here at the latter end. D. Ames Medul. Theol. lib. 2. c. 15. Sect. And one (of chief note in this matter of the Sabbath) seems somewhat strangely to enervate the strength of that 13. ver. which we have alleged for the strict observation of the Sabbath, leaving doubtful whether it be meant of the ordinary Sabbath, or a solemn Fast; and as far as we can understand, even contradicting himself within a few lines, in the explicating that thirteenth verse, as the judicious Reader may observe. But to answer to all this briefly. We say 1. That these Divines, Sol. though they think the Sabbath secured, for all this interpretation of this Text by a Fast: (and even by it) For say they, [Such strictness belongs to a Fast, but as it is a Sabbath, and so if it be to be so observed; a Sabbath much more;] Do yet afford a wrangler too much advantage, in that they wave the clearest place against worldly words and thoughts on the Sabbath, that is any where in Scripture. And if an opposer should say, (as they will) that a Solemn Fast is to be more strict than a Sabbath (that very fasting being a strictness which includes divers things in it, from which eating, and specially dressing any meat on the Sabbath, loosens a man;) they would not so easily convince such, as they think, that all this belongs to an ordinary Sabbath, but only an extraordinary, which is also a Fast. Although for our parts we hold that the nature of Religious Time, as the Sabbath was, doth infallibly extend both as words and thoughts. But this is not usually taken notice of. 2. But further, for the thing itself, as it is no argument, Sol. 2. that because the Prophet speaks of a Fast in the beginning of the Chapter, therefore he doth so in the end also. For it is most usual in Scripture, and particularly in the Prophets, to go from one matter to another, without any solemn preface: So, 3. It seems to us to be clear, Sol. 3. that the contents of our last translation of the Bible, do rightly and distinctly analise this Chapter, and lay out the parts of it, to be evidently four several matters. 1. A reproof of Hypocrisy, vers. 1.2. 2. An expression of a counterfeit fast, and a true, vers. 3. to 8. 3. Promises to godliness, in general, vers. 8. to 13. 4. Lastly, Promises to the keeping of the Sabbath, vers. 13.14. Or if any list to extend the promises in the former verses to a right Fasting, Yet is there no reason to confine these two last to that matter; For, 4. It is not likely, Sol. 4. that having before vilified a Days Fasting vers. 5. even though with outward strictness and afflicting the soul too; he would make such splendide promises, as vers. 14. contains again to that Day's observance, specially not intituling it by its ordinary Name, but borrowing the Name Sabbath for it. Sol. 5. 5. But above all; if it be rightly considered, what glorious promises are here made (as we said) and that emphatically to the keeping of a Day, named God's holy Day, (or a weekly Sabbath usually bearing the title of God's Holy Sabbath, and God's Sabbath every where) and to the calling it (the Day) a delight, the Holy of the Lord, honourable, etc. It is no way probable, that this can be meant of a Day rarely coming about, when there was a weekly Day, to which all these Titles properly belonged; and that it is ten times, twenty times, more sign of godliness to sanctify the Sabbath constantly weekly, then to observe an extraordinary Fast Day once in a year, (and God had appointed no more) and if in Time of special fear or danger, God's providence (or Prophets also) called to another Day, yet still this was but a small matter, compared with the piety and devotion of a constant weekly Sabbath. A worldling, in fear and distress, may possibly call one such Fastday a delight, etc. but not a weekly Sabbath; whose sudden revolution (over-suddaine a great deal for worldly minds to delight in its coming) will try the best spirit that is: And while worldling's language, at least in their hearts, is, When will the Sabbath be gone, He had need be a godly man in earnest, that can in the presence of God constantly call it a delight, wish it come, and delight in it being come, and observe it as is here expressed: (with supposition too of humane frailties) And therefore there is much more reason, to take it properly for the weekly Sabbath, then improperly for an extraordinary and seldom observed Fast. Sol 6. 6. Whereunto we may in the last place add, that the 14 verse doth not only continue the spiritual blessing forenoted upon particular persons; but a most high, and rich, and full promise unto the whole Nation, that should observe the Day there spoken of. Now what likelihood is there that a whole Nation should be so remarkably encouraged to observe one particular single Day in a year, or so, (for still, we say, the emphasis in the 13. verse is clearly to observe the Day spoken of, what ever it be;) and not rather to observe the weekly Sabbath; Of which both our Prophet, and Jer. c. 17. and Ezek. c. 20.22, 23. and other places of Scripture speak so much, with all earnestness of promises, and threaten, and mentions of judgements even relating to the whole Nation; as we have formerly touched in our Epistle Dedicatory; where also we have given a memorandum of Gods most gracious fulfilling this promise to our Nation, ever since we held forth the Doctrine of the Sabbath professedly: Which blessing we trust (and hearty pray) we shall never be so unwise and unhappy as to forfeit by our forsaking the doctrine or practice of this Day of blessing, as we there said. And now the error imputed by the Author, Sol. 7. quoted in the objection, will fall upon himself, who can no way make good his own assertions of the Holy observation of the Lords day, the Sabbath, unless he grant, all actions, words, and even thoughts, merely humane, which are not necessary, (for of necessities we have, as all agree, granted reservations) to be sins so fare forth. For that, this were to take so much, (how little soever) from God, whose Day it altogether is, and from the soul for whose good it is; to bestow it, and that (we say) unnecessarily, upon the World, and a man's self in earthly respects. And then also, how shall the magnificent promise be fulfilled to those, that allow not God the whole of His own (twice called holy) Day. We would not have touched this slip of so reverend an Author's pen, but that we have met with it objected against us; and his testimony against us might sway with others, if we had wholly passed it over in silence. But now we are persuaded, we have made good this text also for the securing of happy blessing, both personal, and national, to the observers of Gods determined chief solemn Time or Sabbath. And so our whole Argument, taken from His indulgence of the Time for our worldly businesses. And so we pass on to some special Arguments, LXXV. God must determine the particular day. Arg. 1. for God's determination of the particular day, all time and days are his, none ours but by his indulgence. vindicating the determination of the particular Day for the chief solemn Time, as well as the chief Time itself. But in a very few words, in comparison of our former great length. Thus we reason: [If all Time be Gods, and none ours for worldly employments, but by His indulgence; Then the particular Day (or Days) for the chief Time to Religion, belongs to God's peculiar determination, and not to men's. But all Time is Gods, and none ours for worldly employments, but by His indulgence. Ergo, The particular Day (or Days) for the chief Time to Religion, belongs to God's peculiar determination, and not to men's.] The Antecedent cannot be denied, and hath been sufficiently illustrated in the foregoing Parallel Argument. The Consequence of this may also be cleared: If we consider, 1. That how ever this be no such matter of importance in Religion in the essential part of it, as the former was; yet even this concerns in some sort the Sovereignty of God, so far as we can conceive of it: Unless He had fully and clearly expressed himself (which we no where find in His Word) to have put over the determination of this Particularity to men. 2. That an indulgence to men, of so much Time, so often for their worldly employments, (as of six Days in seven) doth not yet, in the nature of it, allow them to be their own Carvers in the particular Days: But they must wait upon God's particular allowance of the particular Days, before they may presume to employ any of them at all to their own worldly occasions. The order, as well as the proportion, is in God's hand originally, and He puts not the disposition of that out of His hand, without an express declaration of so much, particularly, or at least generally. (As Lawyers say of the King, that He passes away none of his rights, in any grant, by doubtful and ambiguous words.) If but a master say to his servant or scholar, or a parent to his child: I will allow you so many hours for yourself, (your own business, or sport, etc.) and so much Time you shall attend your book, and my business, this Day, or any Day: Will any conclude, that such servant, scholar, or child, may take those hours to himself, when he lists himself; though he should attend on this master or parent the rest of the Time? For this would show, that himself, rather than his superior, were the Lord and commander of his Time; and so be an act of presumption; as if also his superior were rather beholden to him for affording to give such attendance upon him at all, than he to his superior for his indulgence of so much Time, (when he could have challenged none at all; all being his superiors, none his own) for his private occasions. Let this be thought upon, and it cannot well be denied, but it is a proper piece of sovereignty, (even of all superiority) to retain the appointment of the particular Times for the chief attendance of inferiors upon them, in their own hands; and a part of the natural homage such own to their superiors, to depend upon their express pleasure for the particularities of the chief Times of such attendance, as well as for the proportion of such Times. A Lord even of a Manor uses to reserve this authority in his own hands, That his Courts, when all his homagers shall be bound to do their suit and service to him, shall be at his calling, and not at the Tenant's pleasure, either extraordinarily or ordinarily. How much more is this a Royalty beseeming the LORD-Paramount of Heaven & Earth! We conclude then this Argument with this admonition, That our Disputers would but root out that pernicious thought, which we fear they are deeply tainted with, That Time is now rather our own, than Gods. And then we make no doubt but they will readily yield both the chief Time for His Worship, and the particular Days for it, to belong eternally to His determination, and all disputes between them and us will suddenly be at an end. We confirm this Argument by a second, LXXVI. Arg. 2. Upon that determination depends God's blessing. near of kin to the former, suitable also to our foregoing discourses for the chief Time. [If we stand in need of a Blessing from God upon the proportion of Time which we observe for the sufficient chief Time for Religion: Then the determination of the very particular Day belongs to God peculiarly, and not to men. But, we stand in need of a Blessing from God upon the proportion of Time which we observe for the sufficient chief Time for Religion. Ergo, The determination of the very particular Day belongs to God peculiarly, and not to men.] The Antecedent hath been sufficiently confirmed before. The Consequence may be proved, by considering, 1. That the Proportion cannot be regularly observed, but by the determination of a particular Day for it. 2. That men have no power to annex God's blessing to any determination of theirs. That comes freely from Gods own will and pleasure, from His mere grace, which men cannot so much as know, without He reveal it himself by way of Promise or Covenant; which He doth to His own ordinances, but no where to men's ordinances, that is, to any such determinations of men, as are intended obligatory to others, N. B. or for any permanency. We add this explication, because we find, that God did, for a single act, allow His people, even after His own Altar was made, to build an Altar for sacrifice to Him upon a special occasion, of earth, or of whole stones. But they were not to make a custom of using that Altar, and therefore the materials of it were to be lose. Also in the Passeover, Exod. 12. God allowed particular persons (according to their store) to take a Lamb, or a Kid; but not that He allowed the Elders to enjoin all to one sort, nor was he that now used a Kid obliged to it the next turn. But here the particular Day in question is to be determined for many, (indeed for all mankind, as the next Argument will offer proof of) and so to be oligatorie, and accordingly to be at least for some while permanent; For it were both altogether ridiculous, & would bring forth manifold confusions, to be every 2d. or 3d. turn or revolution, changing the particular Day. Therefore we say, no such permanent and obligatory determination hath any promise of Blessing, unless it be the determination and ordinance of God himself. Now upon the particular determination of the Day, or the particular Day determined, the Blessing doth fall (though not properly for the particular Day's sake, but for the Proportions, to make that sufficient to be observed for the chief Time, as hath been said.) Accordingly then, that particular Day, to make it capable and susceptible of the Blessing; that is, that the observers of that particular Day may enjoy the Blessing promised to the observers of the chief Time, that particular Day must not be determined by men, but by God. LXXVII. Arg. 3. It is very fit, all the world should have one and the same day, as near as may be. A third Argument to like purpose, (of which also touches have been formerly given, but we conceive it convenient to be here expressly handled) is from the more than conveniency, (near to a necessity, if not altogether so) that there should be one particular Day, as near as may be, according to the variation of Climates, even the selfsame Day, all the world over, for the Honour of God generally from all His servants together at the same time; and for the general exercise of the Communion of Saints also all the world over. Thus we propound it: [If all the world over there is to be, as near as may be, one and the selfsame particular day for the chief time to Religion: Then the determination of this particular Day belongs to God peculiarly, and not to men. But there is to be all the world over, as near as may be, one and the selfsame particular Day for the chief Time for Religion. Ergo, The determination of this particular Day belongs to God peculiarly, and not to men.] The Consequence of this Argument is evident, 1. By the constant necessity of having a particular Day determined for the chief Time to Religion; so as, if any such particular Day which was once determined for it be abrogated (upon any grounds whatsoever) there must without delay be a new particular Day determined, as without which the chief Time necessary to Religion cannot be observed by all those whom it concerns, by all Christians. 2. By the Impossibility, that without a Divine determination, or at least a divine revelation, all Christians could so much as come to know what Day, particularly, were determined by all, that know of the abrogation of the former particular Day before them: As suppose, the Apostles going into several Countries, and preaching the abrogation of the old seventh Day, and that a new Day was to be determined by the Church: and that Matthew goes first, and Thomas after him, and Bartholomew after him; how can the Christians, to whom Thomas or Bartholomew preach thus, know, without divine revelation, what Day is determined by the Churches that made the first determination, namely those to whom Matthew preached. 3. By a like impossibility of their knowing what the Churches that should receive the Gospel after them, would determine concerning the particular Day; as namely, to whom (suppose) Philip, and Andrew, and Simon should preach, after the others. 4. The impossibility, that they would all agree upon the same Time, though they did know one another's minds; unless some command from God did necessitate the latter converted Churches to consent to the determination of the first Churches; and this supposed, would to them be in the nature of a divine determination, and would suppose an inspiration from God to have assisted the determination by those Churches. 5. Of this, the great and violent difference, even presently after the Apostles times, about the keeping of Easter day, (upon the particular Day of the Week, or the particular Day of the Month) between the Western and Eastern Churches, shows proof sufficient, namely, how little hope or possibility there would have been even in the Primitive Times, of the agreement about the particular Day for the chief Time to Religion, (and so much rather now) if wholly left to the determination of men, of the Church, Particular, or Nationall Churches, or any. 6. Finally, if it may be imagined, Except. that an Universal Council (representing the whole Church) might sufficiently have agreed upon the particular Day for all Churches, and so for all Christians all the world over: We desire it may be considered. Sol. 1 1. that there was no such thing as any such universal or general Council representing the whole Church in the first Times, when the Lords day, Inst. Sol. the first Day of the Week came first to be practised. 2. If any shall say, that of Act. 15. was such an one, he must yet remember; there was no such determination made, For if it had, the Holy Ghost would have recorded it, being so necessary a thing: Sol. 2 And again the determinations there, were the determinations of the Holy Ghost, as is expressly said in the Synodical Epistle v. 29. Sol. 1 3. Neither could there be any such, so soon, as this needed to be (and was) determined for the practice of particular Churches, and Christians. For we said before, there could be no delay, after the abrogation of the old seventh Day Sabbath preached. And the conversion of Churches so late, one after another, made a general Council of all the Churches in several Nations of the World impossible, till the Gospel had been planted in all Nations. From all which, it follows undeniably, that if one and the selfsame Day were, or were to be determined, in the Apostolic and first Times; for the particular Day unto the chief Time for Religion unto all Christians, all the World over, it could be no otherwise then by a Divine determination, either by Christ himself while He conversed with His Disciples after His resurrection; or else by the Apostles divinely inspired, and commanding in the Name of God and Christ, which comes all to one pass, for the point in hand. The Antecedent, [That there is to be all the World over, as near as may be, One and the selfsame particular Day, for the chief Time to Religion, among all Christians,] hath been declared in the former Chapter. To which may now be added, That we remember not to have ever read or heard, in any Religion, but those that professed the same Religion, observed the same particular Days for the chief solemn Times belonging to their Religion. It was ever so in the Jewish Religion, and is so still; and the like was done by all that became proselytes to their Religion. Also, all Christians, at this Day do; and have ever done so fare as any records lead us, observed actually the same particular Day for the chief Time to Religion, the Lords day the first Day of the Week: even those that joined some other days with it, as some did a while the Old Sabbath, and others, other Days, yet this was ever the chief Day, as is learnedly showed by a late Author, in his elaborate collections from Antiquity, expressly concerning the Lord's day. Neither did ever the Church of Rome, as presumptuous as she hath been in other matters, even to control the undoubted Laws of God and Christ: (as about incestuous marriage, and the Cup in the Lord's Supper) dare to try or practise her authority upon the Lord's day, in changing it to any other Day; Which is also so much the more remarkable, because of the impetuous fierceness of the Romish Victor even in the second Century after Christ, (and hard after the Apostles Times) about the particular Day for Easter, mentioned before. And that in the very Council of Trent, some alleged (upon some occasion) that the Lords day stood but by the Authority of the Church: Yet for all that, The Romish Church never durst venture upon it, to alter it to any other. (The more impudent slander therefore we esteem it to be, and without all shadow or colour, which Barclay (as the Translator of Doctor Prideaux his Lecture quotes him, with an accent of credulity) reports, that Master Calvin should consult of changing it into Thursday. To which we only say thus much, If to accuse without proof shall be sufficient, who can be innocent? And the World hath been enough abused with notorious untruths concerning that man of God, both since he is dead, and even when he was alive: which also have been sufficiently refuted by undeniable proofs. Therefore we wish also the relatour of this sleeveless tale, to consider whether he be any better than the delatour, If those sentences of Solomon be true, Prov. 10.18. and Pro. 17.4. But we have somewhat more to say in the matter in hand: that is, the very Professors of the Mahometan Religion, though some of them differ among themselves (even to an abhorring one of another) in some other matters, as the Turks, and the Persians, Yet they all agree in the keeping of the same particular Days for the chief Times of their Religion, namely the Friday, as we noted before. And so it was also among the Heathens, they had multiplicities of Religions: But we find not among those that professed the same Religion with others, any disagreement, or variety, about the particular Days of their chief Times of solemn Worship. So that it seems a kind of consent in Nature; and very agreeable (to say the least of it) to the very Law of Nature that it should be so. Which makes us the more admire, at some (at least) of our Adversaries disputing, as if the present Church had power to alter the Lords day, to any other day of the Week, And what Church they mean, Nationall? or Universal? (which, to be sure, will never meet so much as representatively, if we include all Christians of Europe, Asia, Africa, and America within the universal Church) Or what they intent by it? And whether they would be glad to see any Nationall Church (or all the Western Churches together) to take in hand such a thing, to show their authority; as Lords of the Lords day, and silence all future disputes by whose authority the particular Day stands? What ever their thoughts be, We for our parts hope, we shall never live to see, any Nationall Church, much less ours, and least of all many Nations to rush upon so desperate an adventure. And so we conclude this argument, with this note, That as we suppose, the ground that hath made all the World thus consent in the same particular Days according to their several Religions, was immediately their persuasion, That those Days are determined to them by their gods, and that it was so delivered by those that commended to them, those particular Days: So this persuasion was built upon another original principle, that the determination of them did properly belong to their gods. LXXVIII. Arg. 4. from the consent of the heathen. And this may make up another argument, (briefly) of great probability, (at least) not only for the particular Days: but also and principally for the chief Time to Religion: namely, The universal consent of Heathens, and misbelievers, (whose practice is, by some of our adversaries, delivered us, as the best Comment upon the Law of Nature or Morality of the fourth Commandment) practising and observing their chief Times for their Religion, as determined to them by their gods; and so owning the determination of them to belong to their authority only. This we say, hath not only seemed reasonable to the Mahometans, as we shown, but to the very Heathen of old. Among whom, as their Priests, or Lawgivers, the immediate institutours of their Religion, feigned the other matters of their Religion and Worship to be prescribed by their gods, in Oracles, Visions, Dreams, and the like, according to that natural principle, which is the general, affirmative, part of the second commandment [God, every God, is to be worshipped with His own prescribed Worship] So, according to the general meaning of the fourth Commandment or at least according to part of the general meaning of that second forementioned: They ever ascribed the institution of their chief and ordinary Holidays, and solemn Times for their Religion, and the service of their gods, Dij miserati laboriosum a natura genus humanion, remissiones laborum ipsi constituerunt. de leg. 2. LXXIX. The 5. general Arg. from confession of the very adversaries. C. D. pag. 21. unto their gods themselves. Hear Plato speak for them all. [The Gods compassionating the laboursome life of mankind, themselves, appointed remission of their labours] that is, Days, or Times, of remission from their labours, which were their Holidays. Specialties of these may be found in other Authors. But now, after all, what will our Readers say, if some of our greatest adversaries in this question, have themselves confessed, as much as will necessarily infer, All this determination about the chief Time and particular Day for it, to belong to God, without peradventure or long dispute? Hear them speak. Thus one delivers his opinion [Men may by the Light of Nature from the Creature; climb up to the knowledge of the Creator; and from the Nature of God, conclude His Worship; and from the Nature of His Worship, conclude a Time (as to all other things) to be due to it. But to go further, and determine, what part of our Time (is due, he means) we cannot: For it will not follow, that because some Time is due, Ergo. The seventh more than the eighth of every Month, or any other Day, above or under that number,] So he. Whence we infer our former conclusion, [If men cannot determine what is due, (some being due) God must determine it. Except. ] If he say, he only means, men cannot determine it by the Light of Nature; but by other Rules they may. We reply. 1. Then God Sol. 1 by this confession must determine it for all the Heathen, for all that have no other Rules then the Light of Nature. 2. Besides that we Sol. 2 have disproved all other Rules as unsufficient, let him try if he can prescribe any sufficient Rules for it. Till when we must say again; since man cannot determine it, God must, that is, God hath. But hear another. [To offer sacrifice Abel might learn of Adam, Hist. sab. part. 1. pag. 35. or of natural reason, which doth sufficiently instruct us that we ought to make some public Testimony of our subjection to the Lord. But (saith he) neither did Adam observe the Sabbath, See Prim. p. 8. sect. 3. nor could Nature teach it.] Now mark what follows, If Nature could not teach it, than Adam could not determine it; and if not Adam, much less, any man, Except. or men now. Therefore again, God must, and did. If he say, Adam might determine another Time, but not this. We Sol. 1 reply, 1. If he might without a Rule, he might stumble upon this number, and day, (for any thing this Author knows) as well as any other; and specially since we hear some notice taken of a Week, or seven Days, before Moses was borne, (of which more Sol. 2 hereafter.) 2. If he might not without a Rule, and had no Rule, nor could have any certain (as hath been proved) than he might not determine any. Yet some Time must be determined. Therefore it was by God himself; Prim. p. 3. add but one more. [Adam neither had, nor should have had any knowledge of keeping a seventh Day, if God had not enjoined it to him by a particular Commandment.] And yet, Pag. 127. None can institute a day as Moral, but God alone. Prim. p. 160. see. p. 249. It is God's prerogative, exclusively to men and angels, to sanctify a thing, to be an essential part, and properly so called, of God's service. saith he, [A stinted Day is necessary.] Ergo, say we, God must determine it. For what could Adam have more, for any other time or Day, then for a seventh Day, without God's particular Commandment? And consider but the Similitude between the second and the fourth Commandments; the Matter and the Time of Worship. [Adam, (say they) or natural reason might teach Abel to Sacrifice. But what? Whether a Sheep rather than a Lion, or a Swine? and how much? Whether one Sheep, or two Lambs? a quart, or peck of fine flower, & c? Neither Adam knew, nor could Nature teach either Abel, or himself, Therefore God must direct them.] So say we, of the Time of Worship, (the chief solemn Time) That some Time be so set apart for God's Worship Adam knew; and Nature might teach both him and us. But how much at once? or how often? or when? that is either the length, number, or order, (the Continuance, Frequency, or particular Day) Neither Adam, nor Nature, nor all the men in the World could, or can, determine without Divine authority; we say, not any one of these, (unless they will yield the Continuance of a whole Day, to be the determination of Nature, as we discoursed before) and much less all of them: Therefore we say still, it must necessarily belong to God. Which things being thus evinced in reason, and from their own confessions in part; We cannot but wonder, they should so soon forget themselves, as to resolve upon the contrary. C. D. pag. 39 [That however it be necessary that some Time be dedicated to God's service: Yet the determination to this, or that particular Day is not necessary to be designed by Scripture.] And they say the like with more earnestness, for the Continuance and Frequency of the Days, which they will have now left to the Church. The clean contrary whereunto doth necessarily follow from their own grants, as we have showed. That some sufficient Time being necessary to be determined for Religion; and some particular Days also, that the sufficient Time determined may be constantly observed; And that no man can determine, what is that sufficient Time, or what Day will please God; all must necessarily be designed by Divine authority: And that now in the Scripture: Or else he must needs run upon the same absurdity, that he would put upon us, That the Scripture is deficient in things necessary; and so forsake his colours of Reformation; and pass over into the Camp of the Romanists. If he be ashamed of this, let him learn and confess, that it is necessary, That God in Scripture, do define the chief Time of His own Worship, in all the respects of it; and accordingly that He hath certainly so done, for Christians now, as well as for the Jews of old. LXXX. The 6. general Arg. from confession of the Romanists. Al. Halens. Sum. Theolog. p. 3. q. 32. n. 2. Aquin. 1.2. q. 91. a. 4. c. secundo, etc. And why should he, or any of his fellows, be ashamed to confess that which some of the Romanists themselves have ingenuously confessed? Who yet are known to be men not apt to offend in over much modesty, where the authority of the Church comes in competition. One hath thus resolved plainly, [When we must rest to God, it belongs not to man to determine.] And again, [By the written Law it ought to be determined, when men must rest to God.] And even Aquinas himself, though he yield not the particular Thing in question, Yet he lays down a general Truth which is justly appliable to the very case in hand, He giveth this for one reason, why it was necessary, that besides the Natural and Humane Laws, we should have a Divine Law: [Because (saith he) of the uncertainty of man's judgement, specially about things contingent and particular; It happens that men are of divers judgements concerning humane acts: Therefore that man might without any doubting, know what he was to do, and what to avoid; It was necessary that in his proper acts, he should be directed by a Law Divine, which cannot err.] Now seeing the observation of the chief Time for Religion, is a thing of so great moment, as hath been demonstrated; and that the judgements of men are so different; and so unable to determine, what is necessary, and what is sufficient, for the chief Time, and which particular Day is fittest, It was therefore, and is ever, very necessary, that God by His own Law & Word, should determine all; and so without all doubt, than He hath. And now it remains that we should examine the Arguments or pretences for the Church's Power to determine this chief Time for Religion in all the respects, or in any. But we can find none particular, and proper to the matter in hand; but only general presumptions, upon the supposition (which they will needs suppose) [That God hath made void all His own former determinations, and so left in His Word all Times and Days equal under the Gospel.] As also that assertion comes most frequently forth, [That Time and Place are equal circumstances in Religion.] And so Place being left to the Church's determination, Time is so too, in like sort. All which we shall encounter more particularly in their proper station, and namely in the next Chapter, by way of corrollary to our whole discourse about religious Time, we shall endeavour to manifest distinctly. 1. That all Times and Days are not equal in Religion under the Gospel. 2. That Time and Place are not equal circumstances in Religion. And therefore the leaving of the one, that is Place, to the Church, will infer nothing at all for the Time to be so left. And then we shall conclude all our general discourse, and first part with asserting, That this chief Time, thus determined by God, is not a mere circumstance or adjunct of Worship, but a proper and essential part of it, a part of Religion, to be observed with the same mind, that any other part of Religion is: which will help (we hope) not a little to the conscionable and careful observation of it. LXXXI. An objection answered. Only one Objection, though of two branches, we have met with, against the necessity of the determination to be made by God, which we must give a particular satisfaction unto, lest some Readers should yet stumble, or be gravelled at them; but briefly, for many words will not now need. Thus it is said, [It seems to be necessary that God should determine the sufficient Time for His public Worship, even on the solemn Days; And again, the sufficient Times for family and solitary Worship every Day: as well as the determinations we have all this while been arguing for. And seeing it is clear He hath not done those; it may seem not necessary He should do the other.] We answer. 1. Supposing that God hath determined the chief Sol. 1 Time of Worship: There is no such necessity, that out of that He should determine particularly a proportion for the public Worship: For when men know they must spend the whole Continuance of the Time, the whole Day, in Religious Worship, either public or domestic, or solitary, The Governors of the Church may now be well enough trusted to determine the hours for the public Duties. Their wisdom (unless in perverse spirits, that would purposely shut out some of the Ordinances, of Prayer, or Preaching, or the like, or curtail them, that men might be sure to have no benefit by the public) will easily suffice to allot convenient proportions for these, from experience how long men may ordinarily hold out in such Duties, whether Ministers or People with edification; and herein also to refer it partly to the discretion of Ministers; There being a possibility of variety in several particular Churches, in the same Church at several seasons of the year, and the like, without any remarkable prejudice to Religion, God's honour, and the good of men's souls any where: Because still the residue of the Day, before and after the public, remains devoted to Religion: Whereas there would be manifest and certain danger of prejudice to Religion, (even the ruin of it) as we have showed, if the whole of the chief Time were left to men's discretion, to any number of men whatsoever. 2. We say the like for the Continuance of Time for Religion on Sol 2 the working Days, either in domestic, or solitary Worship: That God having strictly determined the chief Time (namely one whole Day in a week according to the fourth Commandment) there was no such necessity that He should determine, besides, the Continuance of the Weekdays devotions. He might have done these also, we confess, if it had so been His pleasure. But we have intimated formerly fair reasons which we may conceive, why He would not; namely. 1. His gracious indulgence, to try men's affections, and zeal, and spiritual wisdom, in redeeming of Time ordinarily, and extraordinarily, on those Weekdays, for their families, and themselves to wait upon God, and their Souls: with which they might be conveniently trusted, if they conscionably observed the chief Time (the Sabbath) of Gods own peremptory determination. Specially remembering what we said a while ago, of the Blessing made over to such, that they should thereby come to delight more and more in the Lord: and such than will not be wanting to God and their souls, (or others souls) even on the Weekdays, when they conveniently can redeem any Time. 2. As also, To make evil men the more inexcusable, who being not tied so strictly on the Weekdays, will yet rob God, and their souls, and the souls of others under them, of the Time of the Sabbath, the Time that God himself hath made to be the necessary and ordinarily sufficient chief Time for Religion to all men. Such, we say, would never have obeyed any determination on the Weekdays for any Continuance, if they should have been tied to that also; which think the Sabbath, one day in seven, so intolerable a burden, now that they are so much at liberty on the other Days: For also such on the Weekdays do scarce give God any Time at all, many, or most of them, with their families, or alone. Therefore, we say, we can see reason why God was pleased not to tie men in all the parcels of Time, when yet He would, and hath in some, in the chief. And like unto this, He hath done (at least in the opinion of all (or most) of our English Adversaries) in another Point, namely in matter of our goods. All our estates and goods are His, as well as our Time. Therefore out of them, out of the increase of Corn, and Cattles, and the like, He hath by an express determination challenged to himself a portion, by way of tribute or homage, namely the Tithe, the tenth part, It is the Lords, Leu. 23. (which afterwerd Himself divers years after bestowed upon the Levites and Priests, His Ministers; to whom He saith, Himself would be their portion and inheritance, Num. 18.) Now this Law, we say, our English Disputers believe to be perpetual. Notwithstanding which strict tie for that part of our goods, a tenth part; All acknowledge somewhat more to be due to God, for pious uses, and for the maintenance of the poor: and yet in neither of these hath God made any particular determination; but left it to every one's discretion and affection, according to occasions ordinary and extraordinary. * When (without all controversy) God determined to the jews the chief solemn time, the weekly Sabbath, yet He did not the hours of public moral worship: much less the continuance on weekdays. And it was so even of old, when that Law of Tithes was undeniably in force. So there is no manner of necessity or reason, to infer, That if it please God (and it appear necessary to us for Him so to do) to determine one thing, a chief thing, the chiefest in the kind: Therefore He must also do all of the kind: Or that, because He hath not determined all of the kind, or not this, or that; Therefore we have no need that He should determine at all any of the kind, not so much as the chiefest. For— 3. We add, that Gods not determining the Continuance of Sol. 3 the Time for the Public Worship on the Solemn Days, nor yet of Family or Solitary Worship on the work-days, is so far from arguing that He hath not, or need not (for our sakes) determine the chief solemn Time for Religion, His own Honour, and men's souls generally; that it rather strongly confirms that He hath, and that we needed He should; As being the only certain and sufficient obligation to hold men to necessary, sufficient, just, and profitable attendance upon God and their souls; and to supply the defects that are, or may be, in scanty performances on the Weekdays, and to scour off the rust and filth then contracted by much handling of worldly matters; and to make up a full advantage, beyond that which the nature of the Public Services, whether shorter or longer, could of themselves merely reach unto. God, we say, saw it necessary, (and we can, by His showing, see it too) that He should not leave all Time to men's determinations; and yet convenient, He should leave some undetermined strictly. Therefore accordingly so He hath done, determining the chief Time, with the particular Day for it, expressly in His Word, (and somewhat of each Day by the very Law of Nature, as we have showed) and leaving the rest undetermined to all men, in regard of any strict determination; and referring it to the various occasions and affections of every one for themselves apart, and of superiors for themselves and their inferiors, both ordinarily and extraordinarily, according to general rules of the Scripture, speaking of His Honour, and the good of souls. And all this most wisely and graciously; as we trust, hereafter, every Conscience that duly weighs the premises, will confess with us. Unto which acknowledgement yet, all our following Discourses will not be unprofitable, for the fuller removing of all objections and scruples in any part of the whole Question; and the settling of men's judgements in all the main matters belonging to this great Controversy; as we hope will appear in the sequel. CHAP. XI. Two Corollaries from the former Discourses about Solemn Time. 1. All Times and Days are not equal under the Gospel. 2. Time and Place are not equal circumstances in Religion. IT is found by experience, That Truth sometimes is as much (or more) prejudiced by some common Sentences, which have some show of probability or verity in them, as by the strongest Argumentations against it. Because these are only confined to the Discourses and Writings of learned men, and are formally and sufficiently opposed by the Patrons of Truth: But those are usually tossed up and down among all sorts, and pass for the most part without examination, and so do great hurt insensibly. Therefore it is, that those who would effectually vindicate an opposed Truth, must as well take some pains to encounter such common say, even distinctly and expressly as any other contradicting Arguments: applying to them (without fear of being counted Tautologists) such Reasons as are laid down even in other places, with the addition of any other that are particular and proper; so to discover fully the falsity and danger of those vulgar Conceits and Expressions. I. Two Corollaries from the former Discourse. The thought of this hath made us esteem it necessary to bestow this Chapter entirely upon the examination of two common Assertions, which serve our Adversaries at every turn almost. 1. [That all Days and Times (they say) are alike, and equal under the Gospel. 2. That Time and Place are equal circumstances in Religion.] Which have been so commonly agitated, not only in all Writings of theirs in this Subject, (though without any judicious and exact scanning) but in vulgar discourses; that they are grown to be in a sort Proverbs among them: Insomuch as we find, that the latter of these hath in some sort tainted some, even of those who yet are Orthodox, in the main, about Solemn Time: so that even they speak the same language, now and then, of an Equality of Time and Place. All which constrained us to take in hand a Particular Consideration of both these forementioned Assertions: And though we must of necessity say over some of those things we have spoken already; and touch some others beforehand, whose proper place to argue fully comes hereafter: yet we rather choose to do so, (though some should call it tautologizing) than for want of a formal setting ourselves against those fallacious Principles, to leave such prejudicial conceits in the minds of any Readers. To begin with the first then— Our Position is, II. The first. All Times and Days are not equal. [All Times and Days are not equal under the Gospel.] The Contradictory whereunto had wont to be exploded as an anabaptistical fancy: But now of late, among the Disputers concerning the Sabbath and Lords day, it hath gotten some more venerable fautors. And which adds to the strangeness, even those that cry it down in the Anabaptists, say as much as they in sense, and near their very words. So that there is little or no difference between them, and the other, whom they would seem to oppose; Except it be, that our Disputers give somewhat more to the Church's power about Times and Days, than the Anabaptists allow. But that we may refute both the one, and the other, III. The question stated, by showing, in their erroneous expressions, or meanings; We will first a little state the Question now before us; and then declare our Grounds opposite to their Assertions; and finally, give a touch of Satisfaction to their chiefest strength from the New Testament, which may seem to favour them. But all briefly. 1. It is true, [That all Times and Days, in themselves, 1. Our consent. as Times and Days, materially considered, are equal, and of the very same nature.] One not more excellent, more holy, more necessary to be observed to Religion, than another: that is, antecedent to all determination of God, or in sensu diviso. So that the learned Bishop speaks right in this, [Every day of the week had one and the same efficient cause, namely, Divine creation: B. of E. p. 34. And all times and things created by God, were very good.] But if they so state the Question, the Anabaptists, and they, and we, are all agreed; They have no Adversary in this Cause. But yet this is nothing; For they may as well say this of all Times and Days under the Law, as under the Gospel; That all were materially equal, and in themselves considered. By the Sunrising, or setting, no Theological difference appeared in any of them, no more than now. Here then lies no scruple. Ames. Medal. Theol. lib. 2. c. 15: sect. 50.53. 2. It is also granted, [That the Church may set apart some Times and Days for public Worship.] But with some limitations before insinuated. 1. That they be not accounted as necessary to Religion, or as essential parts of God's Worship. 2. That they be not esteemed and used as properly Holy, so fare that it should be unlawful to change them, or to employ them in any but sacred uses. 3. Lastly, that they be not esteemed as efficacious means of Holiness and Blessing, (in reference to the particular Times, Days, or Hours) to the observers of them. But in this sense again, nor we nor the Anabaptists we think, will much contend with them, For the Anabaptists, granting a public Worship, by Assemblies; must needs confess [That there must be some Times or Days set apart for order's sake to that use, and that every one may know when to join with the public Assemblies. B. of E. p. 132. ] Yea we are told, that some of them did judaize, and kept the Saturday-Sabbath, as instituted of old by Divine authority; and not the Sunday, as being, in their opinion, (and our disputers too) but of humane institution. There was therefore no reason to quarrel with the Anabaptists, concerning the inequality of Days, if this be all the difference. Rather it seems the Anabaptists were offended at this, that those Days which man only had instituted, were called Holy days; and observed (as they conceited) in that manner, and with that opinion of Holiness, etc. as those of God's institution were to be observed. 3. Nor is there any question made by any side, [Whether Divine institution (alone) do not make any Times, this or that particular Day, or Hour, properly Holy, and necessary to Religion.] For this is granted, there were some Days so made Holy under the Law. And the reason is the same under the Gospel; If God institute, or perpetuate any. 2. Our dissent. Our opinion explained. 4. But herein as we conceive, lies the business and difference between us; That we say, [All Times under the Gospel are not equal in reference to Religion;] But that some Times: (in the several respects of Time) some express and definite Continuances; some express and definite Frequencies, or Revolutions; and some express and definite Seasons, or particular Days; are necessary to Religion; and properly Holy: so as they may not be changed, abrogated, or otherwise employed, by man; and so necessary above others; (in sensu composito) not by a Physical necessity of ordinary nature; but by a Theological necessity, Consentancum est rationi naturali, vel potius moraliter necessarium est, ut fasti sint dice Suarez. lib. 2. de Relig c. 2. or ethical and Moral, as some other (besides us) have expressed themselves. And that so, it should be sin in all men (except in the cases of reservation, admitted by God to interrupt solemn Times) not to observe those particular Times and Days, which is not to be said of other Days and Times. Our disputers contrarily do maintain, That no express or definite Continuances, or express and definite Revolutions, or express and definite particular Days, 3. The contrary opinion explained. are so necessary to Religion, as that all men, or all Christians, should be guilty of sin, for the in observation of them, more than of others.] This, we say, is that which many of their reasonings apparently tend unto, and which they must mean, if they understand themselves: Also we cannot deny, but that at other times they say that which will not stand with this; as we shall even here by and by show them. But we cannot help that, if they contradict themselves; (as they do in more things than one) but only by showing it them, and our Reasons on the one side; As we shall here now do for our Assertions, to win them fully to them, if it may be. We say then, for the confirmation of our Position, IV. Confirmations of our Assertion. Arg. 1. Nature determines a whole day at lest once. Ergo. and refuting of theirs: 1. [If the Law of Nature determine, at lest once in every man's life, a whole Day's continuance expressly, as necessary to be altogether spent in Religion, (as we have argued in the ninth Chapter) then is not all Time equal under the Gospel, in respect of Continuance for Religion.] No other proportion will satisfy the Law of Nature; no, not two, or three Halfe-Dayes, in stead of one whole Day. And so this Continuance of a whole Day may not, by man, be abrogated, altered, or alienated; and is more properly Holy, than any other Continuance of Time for Religion; that is, than any other that is less; For greater there can be none in Nature, as hath been showed. 2. [If the Law of Nature determines for every Work-day of a man's life, at least a double Frequency of attendance upon God, V Arg. 2. Nature determines for twice every day. Ergo. as necessary unto all men: (which we have also argued in the forenoted place) Then is not all Number or Frequency of Times equal in Religion; Or all Times equal in respect of an express Frequency or Revolution so often.] Half the Day spent in Religion, will not suffice to discharge from the second due attendance: nor ten times upon the Day before, or the Day after, compensate for that neglect: Because the Continuance being not here determined, the Service may be so suddenly dispatched, as nothing but want of Will and Devotion can be assigned as the cause of not tendering that double proportion on the most busy Day that any man hath in his whole life. VI Arg. 3. Nature requires a determination for Continuance and Frequency. Ergo. 3. [If the Law of Nature require any determination of Time at all for Continuance and Frequency jointly, (as we have also proved at large, and all our Adversaries also acknowledge, under the terms of a Sufficient Time to be Morall-Naturall:) Then, whosoever be the determiner of this sufficient Time; or whatever the proportions be, though but an hour in a year: yet is not all Time equal in Religion under the Gospel, for Continuance and Frequency both. For this hour in a year is necessary to Religion, and so properly holy, and unchangeable by man, (who may not take a shorter Continuance, or less Frequency, because this is necessary; not a longer Continuance, and greater Frequency, because this is sufficient for the chief Time:) less, and seldomer being against the Law of Nature; which cannot be said of other Continuancies and Frequencies more large: Yet again, more, and oftener, being not so necessary, and so burdensome. And therefore still, this hour in a year, (or any other Continuance in any other Frequency pitched upon) is above all other Times for Religion; no other being equal to it. VII. Arg. 4. Nature requires a determination of a particular day. Ergo. 4. [If there must necessarily be, together with the determination of the Continuance and Frequency for the necessary sufficient chief Time: also a particular determination of the particular day and hour, wherein this hour in a year must be observed; (or else it is impossible to be observed by a whole Particular Church together constantly: and much more impossible in regard of a whole Nation; and most of all for all Christians, and men, all the world over.) Then, when that particular Day and Hour is once determined (by what authority soever) in any Church, (as it must necessarily be, as soon as the old seventh-day Sabbath was known to be abrogated) All Days and Times are not equal in Religion under the Gospel, even in regard of the particular Season, or Order, Day or Hour.] No other Day or Hour is equal to this determined Day or Hour, but It above them all: That particular Day, wherein that Hour is to be observed, is above all other Days: and that particular Hour of that Day is above all other Hours even of the same Day. As a King once chosen, (in an elective Kingdom; and chosen he must be, as soon as possible may be) is above all other men in that Kingdom or Nation, and none equal to him from henceforth, whatever they were before his election. And in reference to this election necessary to be made of a King, that State is called properly a Kingdom, even during the inter-regnum or vacancy: and it cannot be said properly, that all men are equal in that State, because the Fundamental Law of the State requires, that one be above all the rest as King. So that from the Law of Nature, and the confessions of our Adversaries themselves, It cannot be properly said, that in any one of the Respects of Time, (Continuance, Frequency, or Order) all Times or Days are equal in Religion, under the Gospel. For that, 1. The Law of Nature requires a determination of all the three Respects, that so a chief Time may be observed. 2. It than requires (upon the supposition of Gods not determining now) an undelayed immediate determination of all of them by the Church. 3. It binds consequently (upon the supposition of this determination left to the Church) the Consciences of all under the Church's authority, to that determination in all respects, as well, and as strongly, as if God himself had expressly made it. And so to all inferiors in the Church, (and superiors too, unless endued with clear authority to alter what is once ratified by God) that Time so determined, for Continuance, Frequency, and Order also, is necessary, and unalterable, and above all others. 5. If God, in the New Testament, VIII. Arg. 5. God owns one day as his viz. the Lordsday. Ergo. have owned one particular Day in a Revolution, as His calling it the Lords day, (as He hath undoubtedly, whatsoever ridiculously D. Gomarus hath fancied, that it signifies only the day of the vision to John, and no more) Then, how seldom soever it come about, be it but once in a year; Or whatever be meant by it, whether the day of the Lords nativity, Christmas day, as it is called; or of His resurrection, Easter-day, or any other day; and how little soever be to be observed of it as holy, and spent in Religion, two hours, or one hour, or less: Yet still, in as much as it is entitled the Lordsday, (by the Spirit of God guiding St. John's pen) All Days and Times are not equal in Religion under the Gospel, for Frequency, and the particular Day in that Frequency. For this Day, in its Frequency, is above all other; It alone (and no other with it, or besides it) is honoured and graced with that Majestic and glorious title. IX. Arg. 6. The Church in all ages hath owned the Lord's day. Ergo. 6. If the Church in all Ages from St. John's time, be a sufficient Interpreter (or living Dictionary) of a word or phrase in Scripture, (as a man would think no man would offer to contradict that) Then the Lordsday signifies both a Day in a Weekly revolution, (and not an Annual Day) and the first Day of the Week, the Day after the old Sabbath, which was the last Day of the Week. On which first Day of the Week, S. Paul being at Troas seven Days, kept a special meeting, and administered then the Sacrament: and on that first Day of the Week, he appointed at least the charitable collections to be; taking it for granted, that that Day was weekly observed; as undeniably it was in the next Age, and ever since. Then also, again, All Times and Days are not equal in Religion under the Gospel: But the Lordsday, the first Day of the Week, for Order and Frequency, is above all other Days, and numbers of Days. One Day in seven, and the first of the seven, have that dignity in the New Testament, to be owned as Gods, as the Lords own time, which no other Number or Day can pretend unto: None so necessary as this to be observed. X. Arg. 7. The Lord's day, in all the three respects of Time, most necessary to Religion. Erg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Perrincus all Dominum Scap. 7. If whatsoever God owns as His possession, by way of discrimination or difference from other things of the same kind, uses to be wholly His; no part or parcel of it for worldly use, as it was with the Lords house, and the like: Then is the Lords day wholly the Lords, wholly sacred; the whole Continuance of it being the Lords possession, to be wholly employed in His immediate worship and service: [The Greek word for it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being plainly a Possessive belonging to the lord] And then also again, All Times and Days are not equal: in Religion under the Gospel, even for Continuance, as well as for Frequency and Order. But the Lordsday is in all the 3. Respects of Time more necessary to Religion than any other, and so above all other Days and Times: There being none, besides this, ennobled with such a relation to the Lord, to be styled by Himself, His. None so every way, or any way, the Lords day, as this. For also— XI. Arg. 8. The Scripture owns the Lord's day, as of his institution. Ergo. 8. If Scripture may be safely interpreted by Scripture, even about the nature and reason of a phrase or term, (as that uses to be a general rule among Divines, except there be in the Text itself an evidence, that it cannot be here taken as it is elsewhere; or that it oppose some other undoubted truth.) Then, besides all that hath been already noted of the Lordsday, it is hereby also entitled to an Institution from the LORD Himself, from CHRIST: The Primitive Church seems to bear witness to this, calling the Prayer instituted by Christ, by the same term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Oratio Dominica, neither can it signify any thing but the Prayer of the Lords institution: Though the Generations after, weakened the Testimony, by calling Churches so. As being parallel in phrase with the LORDS Supper, which beyond all peradventure, had no other Institour but Christ. The Spirit of God, who directed the two Apostles. Paul, and John, in these two titles, (which are neither of them used in Scripture but once a piece,) never vouchsafed the term to any other thing in the New Testament: but only to the Supper and the Day [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] He had his choice of words, and spoke nothing, but upon admirable reason. And no other good reason can be imagined why he would match these two, (& these only) in this appellation, If they both had not had the same Author and institutor: And if he had not intended to insinuate so much unto us, and teach it us even by the phrase particularly, giving first the term to the Supper, and when we could not mistake that, matching the Day with it, that we might not mistake that neither. Then also, once more, All Times and Days are not equal in Religion under the Gospel. The Lord's day is above all other Days and Times, in regard of its Author and institutor. No Day is equal to this in this highest dignity and prerogative, (whence its being His peculiar, His possession, wholly His, sacred to Him, infallibly flows, unless He had said the contrary,) having its authority and institution from the Lord himself; and so being then unquestionably necessary to Religion; and most properly Holy; and beyond control altogether unalterable by man: None of which can be alleged with any the like pretence from Scripture, for any other Day under the New Testament. We are not ignorant, that exceptions are made by our disputers against these things that we have represented concerning the Lord's day; But the special answer to them we reserve to its proper place, where we shall (by His assistance, for whose Commandment, Day, and Honour, we argue in all this,) take all that they say against it, into consideration; and give, we hope, a satisfactory discharge to all their objections. In the mean Time, upon so just an occasion, in this place, we thought it requisite to give our Readers a brief of what we shall more at large then discourse of, whereby we doubt not, but even without the help of our solutions, divers, will be able, by the innate light of these considerations here presented, to discover the adverse exceptions to be but frivolous; and no way enervating our assertions about it. But we have one proof more of the inequality of Times now— XII. Arg. 9 God retains the determination of Times to himself. Ergo. all not equal. 9 If God himself retain in His own hand, even under the Gospel, the determination of the Continuance and Frequency of the chief Time necessary and sufficient to Religion for all men for the chief Time; and that it is not put over by Him to men, the Church, nor any other; (as hath been at large proved in the foregoing Chapter:) Then the fourth Commandment is unquestionably, that determination, expreslly for one whole Day in seven, and the Lords day, the first Day (of the seven) of the week; is the particular Day, and all that we have here now said of the Lords day is undeniably true, unless our Antisabbatarians will turn Sabbatarians, and plead for the Saturday-Sabbath, as still in force by the fourth Commandment: (from which Hold, we yet doubt not but we shall beat them hereafter, and all that argue for it:) But howsoever: then still it follows most certainly, that all Times and Days are not equal in Religion under the Gospel. But that there is still as great an inequality of some Days (though not of so many) as ever there was under the Old Testament (except the typical use of the particular Days then appointed) even upon the highest ground of Divine command; which lifts up the Lord's day for the whole Day in a constant weekly revolution, above all other Times and Days, now whatsoever, as certainly, (and only) necessary to Religion, and sufficient for the chief Time, unto all Christians, and men all the world over, and properly Holy, and unalterable by man; and honoured with the blessing mentioned in the fourth Commandment, and needed by men, as we have discoursed before. XIII. Objections answered. And now from all this, will follow a certain, and easy Answer to those places of the New Testament, which seem to favour the adverse opinion; and to lay all Days and Times level now. As Gal. 4. Blaming the observation of Days, and Months, and Times (or seasons, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word) and Years. And Rom. 14. making stronger Christians to pronounce, every Day alike. Sol. These places, we say, must of necessity be interpreted of the jewish Days and Seasons, the particular Days which they observed for the Weekly Sabbath; and the New Moons; These texts and Collections are oft earnestly urged by our disputers: therefore we shall in another place more fully sift and scan them, and the objections raised from them: But here it was necessary to touch them in brief. and the seasons for their Yearly festivals; the Passeover, feast of Weeks, Trumpets, Tabernacles; and their sabbatical Years, every seventh Year; and Years of jubilee every 50. Years, of these Seasons and Days, speaks the Apostle, which the false Apostles would still obtrude upon Christians, and weak ones still made conscience of. Of all these Days and Seasons, it is most true, that they are all alike under the Gospel: and none higher than others, none of them to be observed with any religious respect to the Day, any more, or as Holy-Times: as being made void by Christ, and laid level with all ordinary Days and Times. But these cannot be extended to all Days and Times universally. If but any one of the former positions in this Chapter be true; and much less can they be urged against us, if all our reasons here expressed, be good, as we believe them to be: And specially the third, and the last. For which, without more ado now, we appeal to the consciences of all readers; [Whether they will admit of our interpretation of these places, or make void even any necessity of any sufficient Time at all for Religion (and so hazard the losing of all Religion for want of a sufficient Time) so much as one Hour in a Year, or any day at all to be certainly determined for Religion, God's Worship and souls good?] Which whatsoever it be, or by whomsoever it be determined: All Days and Times are not equal: but the determined sufficient Time must be above all other Times, and the Day for it above all other Days. And if they grant such a determination necessary, then whether, notwithstanding all our Arguments, they will still ascribe it to men, or to God? And if to God, than all Days and Times are again (more certainly) not equal. But Gods determined Times and Days must be above all others, for necessity, sufficiency, holiness, blessing; which is enough and enough for their assertion. And so we leave it, to the consciences of our readers: And proceed to our other position: which is— XIV. The second Corollary. Time and place are not equal circumstances in Religion. [Time and place are not equal circumstances in Religion,] For the demonstration whereof, we need use no other arguments than such as may be drawn from what we have already discoursed concerning the profitableness and necessity of Time toward Religion, specially the Continuance and Frequency of. Time largely employed to Religion, even indeterminately and voluntarily; but more, determinate and solemn. Whereunto when we go to seek a parallel in place, we shall find the distance and difference so unmeasurable, as we cannot forbear saying, that we know not how to wonder sufficiently, how confidently, and continually, the equality of Time and Place is inculcated upon all occasions. And were it not for that confidence of our adversaries in this assertion, we should even be afraid, our Readers would think us fools, or that we wanted work, to busy and trouble ourselves to declare a thing so evident and plain, as this will anon appear to all that exercise either conscience or reason in the comparing these two one with another. XV. Place may be considered. To which purpose we must needs first begin with a little philosophical discourse of Place relating to humane actions, and businesses; as we had before of Time, but with much more brevity. And then we shall make up, (but briefly also, for a few words will make it plain enough,) the vast disproportion and inequality between them in Religion. 1. In quantity, or in Vbi. We say then first, That as Time, so Place, in Philosophy, is considerable in a double Predicament, one of quantity or proportion, room or space; which also hath three respects (or dimensions, as they are called, whereas the proportion of Time hath but two.) 1. Of Length, 2. Of Breadth. 3. Of Height, which is so termed as it tends upward: but as downward, is termed depth. The other of Vbi which hath not an English substantive proper for it, only, we must english it, the place where a man is, or doth such a thing. 2. Naturally, artifically, or accidently. Again, Place (as well as Time) may be denominated, according to nature, or art, or accident: 1. Naturally, as to be in or upon the earth or water, or air, 2. artificially, as to be in a house, or room closed round, and covered over head; or open above, or on the sides. 3. Accidentally, to be where such a thing happened, or together with such company and the like. Each of these may admit many varieties of distinctions, which it is not to the purpose to reckon up, though some artificial ones we must a little more look at by and by. Moreover Place (as was said of Time) how ever denominated, 3. As Indeterminate or determinate. is considerable two ways: Either as Indeterminate, and unregarded; or determinate, definite, and appointed. The first is, such Place, where a man is, or where he doth any thing, without choice of that Place, for that action or business, either by himself or by any Superior; and only some consideration moves him to that action or business at that Time; and so he performs it in that Place where he happens to be at that Time; and possibly doth not so much as think of the Place at all; but merely of the business in hand, and the occasion of it. The other is such Place, wherein before hand a man purposed and resolved, either by his own choice, or Superiors command, to do such an action, or pursue such business. And so the Place is part of that which he takes upon him to regard in the performance of such business; and part of that which is charged upon him by the command of his Superior, what ever be the Motive, or Cause, of such undertaking of charge. And now, that we may the more speedily come to out Parallel, we will forbear any distinct consideration of Place in reference to civil business, as waiting on a Superior, getting of Learning, or the like: and without more ado fall upon the business of Religion for God's honour, and the good of souls, though we shall illustrate that a little now and then, by instances also in civil matters. Place, then in reference to Religion, hath generally, XVI. Place in reference to Religion is either common or Consecrated. as it was with Time, a twofold consideration. It being either some common Place, usually and ordinarily employed in worldly businesses, as a hall, parlour, chamber, yard, or field, etc. (which for distinction sake, not rigorously, are termed profane places,) or else Consecrated Place, set apart purposely for Religion: and that either wholly and perpetually; or but in part and for a Time, or at some set Times, again that which is perpetually Consecrated may be exclusive, either of all worldly matters from being transacted in that Place, or of all other Places from being capable of those services for which that Place was Consecrated, as in both respects, the Temple of old, was by God's appointment a Consecrated Place, exclusive from all worldly businesses, and from any other Place being capable of Sacrifices and other typical services for which it was ordained. Also Place, whether common or Consecrated, may relate to Ecclesiastic (or public) worship of divers families together; or domestic worship by those of a particular family, or solitary worship, of each person by themselves. Here now we are to take a view, how far Place in any respect is profitable or necessary to Religion? And whether it can match Time in it? Or comes short of it? And if it do, wherein? So that we may do our Adversaries all the fair right that may be in the point, we will first of all scan, all the profit or necessity that can possibly be pretended to be in Place, some Place, or any Place, toward Religion, wherein it equallizes Time any way. Whereby also they (and all Readers) we hope, will see by how slender matters they have been abused, to make them proclaim in such sort, as they do continually, the equality of Time and Place in Religion. XVII. Place how necessary to Religion. 1. Naturally or Physically. The necessity of Place may be reduced to three Considerations, all respecting properly the body, and none of them the mind directly, which yet is principally employed in Religion. Frrst, there is a Natural, Physical necessity of some Place for every Religious action, or rather for every bodily creature to be in, during its actions. Even Spirits and Angels being creatures and finite, though not corporeal, have their Place, (their Vbi as Philosophers call it) wherein they are; and out of which they are not at that Time. And all bodies have besides, both Locum Internum, which terminates their bodies, as also an Exterior Place, within the air or water (or viz.) which by a natural physical necessity they do require and take up and fill; namely a Place proportionable altogether to their own bigness, for length, breadth, and height. And this they never change, while the bodies are the same; This proportion of Place is immutable, being naturally fitted to their bignesses, how ever the bodies move from Place, to Place, in regard of their Vbi. Now if we take Place in this consideration, there is indeed an equality between it and Time in Religion (or any other business or action,) both are necessary, physically, as we say, that is, inevitably, whether we think of them or no, whether we will or no. No man (no creature) can rid himself of the company of Time and Place. (Esse cum tempore, & Esse in loco; are as inseparable adjuncts, as their own very being.) But this is such a weak consideration, as we should be ashamed to mention it in a serious discourse, but that we find our Disputers, even seriously holding this forth, as a remarkable equality between Time and Place in Religion, that nothing can be done without some Place, as nothing without some Time, and that this should insinuate them both alike, and of equal importance. Whereas in true and sober understanding neither the one nor the other, come at all into a Religious consideration in this sense. Virtue nor Vice, Ethically or Morally, (and much less Theologically or Religiously) having no manner of relation to such Time or Place, or such Time or Place to them. Therefore we dismiss this consideration as unworthy of any Time or Place in our discourse: but that our Disputers wisdom, or Philosophical natural (not moral) reason hath laid a necessity upon us to say thus much of it, that it may no more hereafter be talked of in this controversy. There is a second necessity natural of Place to humane actions; XVIII. 2. Vitally. Religious, or Civil, which we may call vital, or medicinal, that is, that the proportion of the Place, wherein one Prays (or many) or tenders any service to God, be of so large a compass for length breadth and height, as that a man may have room to breath, and that his limbs and members of his body be not so crushed or crowded, as thereby his life or health should be violated and endangered. From whence follows a necessity of a larger Place for many, then for one, or few. Now in this consideration also, we will not deny an equality between Place and Time. Place must not prejudice the life or health by the straightness. No more may Time, by its over long Continuance, or too much Frequency, for any Religious duty, or any thing towards it, watching, fasting, or the like. But this kind of necessity is rather Negative then Positive, in true construction, and is not for Religion properly in a Moral or Theological consideration, as was noted before, but only natural, vital, medicinal, respecting the bodily spirits, and but indirectly the mind or soul. And therefore we need not multiply more words of it. Mean time we have a third natural necessity to consider, XIX. 3. Animally, or sensitively. which we may call animal, or sensitive; namely, that the Place where one is met with others to worship God, be so large for room, and so ordered for nearness to him that is to speak, (whether in Prayer to God for all the rest, or out of the Word, by Reading or Preaching to all the rest) as that all and every one may be able to hear, whatsoever is spoken. And this consideration once more equallizes Place and Time. This being like to the necessity of light Time, (whether Natural of the Day light, or artificial of Candles, Lamps, Torches, etc.) that all may both read, that can read, and besides may know to behave themselves orderly in the service of God, and may partake of the Sacraments in a fitting and decent manner. But again this consideration, is rather Negative, or Privative, then Positive; and though drawing nearer to Religion then either of the two former; yet being not properly a necessity Theologicall or Moral, but animal and sensitive, the Senses not serving but within such a distance, and with such help: Whereas Religion is chiefly exercised in the mind, and may be (solitarily) without any present use of the Senses; and when publicly, the Senses are accommodated with fit Place, and Time, the mind perhaps is wholly irreligious. So that here is a very small matter toward Religion, affirmatively and certainly, by all this necessary Place had and observed. And yet this is all the necessity to Religion, that we can conceive, that Place in itself considered, (and Antecedent to all command of God, of which by and by) is capable of, in any respect relating to God's Worship, and the good of men's Souls: as we shall see more anon. XX. The profit of Place is accidental, in regard, Suitable hereunto, somewhat also may be said, of the profit of Place, as it may be thus, or thus diversified, toward Religion. But whatever it is, it will be found only accidental, and not any way affording any substantial profit, like that which we have before noted (and must now again for this purpose repeat) of the profit●blenesse of the Proportion of Time both for Continuance and Frequency, in a substantial manner as we may call it. 1. Of fitness. First, than there may be an accidental profit (or rather convenicy, for that here is the more proper phrase) in Place, when well contrived for the largeness of it according to the company, and for the coolness in hot weather, and warmth in cold weather, and shelter from rain, and wind, and the like. Yet this, it is not amiss to observe, is so little toward Religion, that the Jews had not by God's command any such thing in that Court of the Temple where they met, but were in the open air, liable to rain and storms, as appears (besides the evidence of other proofs) by Ezr. 10. vers. 9.13. Though it is also true, that some of the godly Kings provided somewhat toward it, called a covert for the Sabbath, which wicked Ahaz is branded for taking away; (as in spite to the Worship of God) a Kin. 16.19. Whereunto we may add, the conveniency of fitting seats, and galleryes, and windows for more light, and such like accommodations; and the Places of public Worship being not too fare from the dwellings of those that are to have recourse to it. And like unto this accidental profit of Places, is the accidental profit of Time heretofore noted, namely the seasons of Time, as that the public Worship, particularly be not too early, nor too late, in the morning, or at night, whereby men would be apt to be sleepy, or drowsy, nor too long continued in the extremities of heat or cold, which would dull men's devotions, or that persons could not come from, and return to their dwellings, in convenient times. Here now again Time and Place are equal, But these things are still rather removals of impediments, than any formal furtherance, when they are at the best, as reason and experience shows. All this may be observed, and yet little or no Religion gotten hereby. 2. Another accidental convenience (or profit, XXI. 2. Of gracefulness. if any will still call it so) may be in reference to the fancy, when the Place is so gracefully shaped, whether in the greatness of it, beyond any necessary use, or in the littleness of it, yet capacious of all the company; and otherwise artificially adorned, both in the fabric of it, and other adventitious ornaments: as that it pleases the fancy of such as come into it, which oftimes such things do, even more then enough. But this conveniency such as it is, (though if it be soberly and rightly used, may add a little cheerfulness to the Spirits at the first beginning) oftentimes, if not for the most part, and with the most men, proves an inconvenience, and a great one, by distracting men's minds, with looking upon those fancies, and so occasioning the neglect of the religious and solemn actions, they come (or pr●●●●d to come) for. In so much as the wife and severe Lawgiver of the Lacedæmonians Lycurgus, Plutarch. in vita Lycurgi. appointed the Place for the public meeting of the Senate for State affairs, rather by a River side, then in any house: Because he said, In a house, men would often be gazing upon the fashion of the building, or some other beautifyings of the room where they were, and so many times neglect the minding of the businesses in hand. How much more is this like to be, If Places for religious meetings, be curiously adorned with Paintings, and Stories, and such like gawderies, as some would have them now adays. So that, though here, we offer not any parallel of Time to Place in this consideration, because Time being not so founded in a sensible object as Place is, it is not capable of artificial ornaments, or pleasure to the fancy, yet Place hath got little pre-eminence of Time in this, being more liable to abuse then Time, and its conveniency very weak. Therefore for this particular, we will refer it to the Readers, to pronounce concerning their equality toward Religion, and proceed to a third consideration. XXII. 3. Of decency, or civil respect. 3. Some kind of profit, or conveniency, may further be in Place, namely of a set determinate Place, even Consecrated: (we mean not, with this or that Rite of Consecration, for which we know no warrant in Scripture, no such thing being related of the Synagogues, beyond which, our Places of Worship can with no good reason pretend, if so fare) But we say there may be an accidental conveniency of Consecrated Places, built purposely, and altogether reserved for religious Duties, as our Churches, and the Chapels of great men. Which profit, or conveniency, we may call a Civil Testimonial of respect to the Worship of God, and business of Religion. That as it is a piece of Civil decency, and expression of respect, to have rooms reserved for serious businesses: As the Town-house for every Corporation, the Shire-house, the Parliament-houses, and the like. Even every man that hath room enough in his private house, hath several Places, to lodge, to eat, to dress meat, &c, and other things are not usually done in those rooms: So in Times of Peace and Plenty, it is fit there should be for all public assemblies, Places built and reserved for Religious use. And to apply these without any necessity to mere secular purposes and businesses, may be a breach of decency: Although all sober and serious businesses, wherein the Parish generally are to meet, may haply pass for a sufficient necessity, if there be no other Townhouse wherein they can meet. Also to keep a school in some part of the Church (as it was wont to be, in all villages, till of late) where there is no school house built, may also pretend to a necessity, But out of these cases, and for the constancy of meeting, It is fairly convenient to have public places so set apart for Religious services. But this convenience is again but a weak matter. For he that prays in his hall, or parlour, may, and often doth serve God as Respectively, Decently, Devoutly in his mind, as he that hath a Chapel in his house: and so Soldiers that hear Prayers and Sermons in open Fields, where ever their Camp is, may be as devoutly affected, as those that have the most convenient Church to meet in. And so it was unquestionably, with the Primitive Christians, who met any where, in private houses, in caves, in woods; and had certainly no set Places at the first; notwithstanding all the pretended allegations that some have made of late for this; Cameron de Eccles. p. Of which the most material are answered by the learned Cameron. Now the parallel of Time set apart, to match or exceed this, we forbear at the instant, because by and by, it will come more properly. Two other considerations of the profit of places remain, which as they were ordained of God of Old, drew nearer to Religion, than all that we have yet mentioned: Though still their profit was but accidental as we shall see: And now in one of them, it may be a little still, though very little: and in the other none at all, but contrary: For— 4. There may be an accidental profit of places set apart, XXIII. 4. As a memorial of some work of God. that is for memorial; When public worship is performed in places, where, or whereabouts, some famous act of God's providence hath been showed, or which are built merely in remembrance of some such thing. So of old, God appointed some, as the Temple to be built on Mount Moriah, where Abraham offered his Son Isaac. And ratified others, as he sent Jacob to Bethel, when he had had his vision, and where consequently he had vowed to serve God. And according to this, men of their own choice, lawfully built the like altars; namely the places of sacrifice in memory of some notable work of God; till God, by the building of the Temple, commanded them all away; and after that, they proved occasions of much Superstition and sin. And so did the making the Sepulchers of the Martyrs (some while after the Apostles) the places of Christians meetings, prove occasions of Superstition and Idolatry too, ushering in praying to Saints, and worshipping their very Images, and the like. And herein Time hath matched Place, both for the profit and disprofit. For though of old we read of no abuse of Times set apart for memorial by the Jewish Churches, or any of the old Patriarches; yet we have before noted, that not only God did appoint some Days and Times of Memorial, as the Passeover, and the Feast of Weeks and Tabernacles, though they had also another use, namely Typical as we have also noted: But the people of God ordained some likewise, as the Days of Purim, and Feast of the Dedication. And as for the Christian Church, they by degrees grew to observe sundry Days of memorial in a year; and haply made good use of them in the Innocent Times, but afterward these also degenerated into Superstition, and burden, and even proved matters of Idolatry, as that Papists Days formally dedicated, not to God but Saints, Angels, and the Virgin Mary; In which they pray solemnly to them, and worship their Images, and Relics above all other Times. Here than they may go again for equal (Place and Time) a small profit, and some danger of disprofit. Only the Continuance of Time well employed, may be, and is, a real and substantial profit (so far forth) as our Anniversary Time of thanksgiving for deliverance from the Powder Treason, in experience and reason is. Also God's Day of memorial, sets Time above Place, he having now ordained no Place for that end: So that the advantage here is for the Time, of which a great deal more will come to be showed now strait way. XXIV. 5. As Typical. 5. The last kind of profit, that we can think of, which Place can afford to Religion, is still accidental, namely Typical, serving by the command of God, for a Ceremonially Spiritual use. Such was the Place of the Tabernacle and Temple, which related to CHRIST (whose humane nature was the true Temple, wherein dwelled all the fullness of the Godhead bodily) and directed to expect all the acceptation of our services, our spiritual sacrifices, from their being presented in Him and in His name to the Father; and the unlawfulness of presenting them otherwise. And answerable hereunto Time: the seasons of Time (as we have formerly discoursed,) even all that God of old appointed, all the particular Days, He set apart for His worship, he made (first or last) to be typical and to have a Ceremonially Spiritual use, relating to Christ, as Saint Paul tells us, Col. 2. In this again then, Time and Place of old were equal; And so are they now too: Not that there is any such use of them in the Christian-Church now: But that there is no such use of either of them any more. We will not urge, or plead for a Ceremonial, or Typical use of a seventh Day-Sabbath under the Gospel. (However some friends seem a little to do so; by some phrases, perhaps unwary, certainly unadvised) Nor of the Lordsday; though it is a strong memorial, as appointed by God in memory of Christ's Redemption by His resurrection on that Day of the Week. Also no Place now doth or can inherit such a Typical profitableness. Men never having power to invest it with it; and God having devested it by the coming of Christ in the flesh, and the consequent destruction of His Temple at Jerusalem. We say then, That in this respect, as well as the former, Time and Place have been, and are equal in Religion, one as profitable as the other. But we have now done with all their equality, and with all the necessity, or profit, that can be in Place, this or that, or any Place, toward Religion: Of which we have had nothing properly Theological, or Spiritual, but this last which was merely accidental, by God's absolute pleasure and institution; and the rest only properly for the body's convenience, and very little or nothing to the mind, except accidentally to the fancy, or memory; But nothing substantial, or in the nature of the thing itself, toward the Soul, its inward good, God's glory, and so the advancement of Religion. And now there are yet behind manifold considerations of Time, the proportions of it, the Continuance, and Frequency, wherein it is Ethically, and Morally, substantially and materially profitable, and even necessary, in the most Theological respect that can be, for the securing and advancing of Religion; Wherein it will undeniably appear to be, beyond comparison, superior to Place, and that Place in those most important respects, XXV. Three differences in nature, between Time and Place toward Religion can in no sort pretend to be equal to Time in Religion. Only first, let us but premise two or three differences, even in Nature, between Time and Place: which though perhaps at the first view they may seem but sleight; yet upon second thoughts, they may possibly be counted worthy the noting, as foreboding (as we may say) the greater and more remarkable differences in Religion. First then, Place, our Place, is terrenum quid, an earthly kind of thing; we being on earth, its foundation is on earth, and is defined by an earthly body, of which it is the superficies: And accordingly, as we have already said, it hath only properly relation to the body, and bodily conveniences. But Time is coeleste quid, a kind of heavenly thing; whose foundation is in heaven, being derived from thence, from the motion of the celestial orbs and heavenly lamps of light; being measured by them, and being the measure of them. And accordingly, it is proper to help us forward toward heaven. 2. Place is, quiddam crassum & materiale, a kind of gross and material thing; and so only concerns the body's convenience directly, which is a material substance. But Time is quiddam immateriale & spiritale, as we may say, a kind of spiritual and immaterial thing; and so hath a more proper influence into the mind, soul and spirit. 3. Place is in its own nature, fixum & immobile quid; a fixed, settled, steady thing, which moves not; and so less care is required about it, the same Place that serves conveniently for one business, will often without any care taking serve for another, the same Hall or House for divers kinds of Counsels at several Times. But Time is mobile & fluidum quid, a fleeting fleeing thing, that slides away silently like a river without noise; and so the same particular Time, in any of the respects, is irrecoverably lost, if slipped and neglected; and accordingly if good care be not taken about Time, the whole action or business comes thereby to be disordered and marred. So that even in Nature (to begin with) the differences are apparent between these two, Time and Place; and so in Civil or Artificial actions they are not equal. XXVI. In Religion, at least 20 differences. 1. Time indeterminate is of great importance, not so Place. But much more manifestly, and importantly in Religion, in very many Considerations, which we now proceed to enumerate and weigh. 1. We have noted of Time, even indeterminate, [That it is a circumstance of much importance toward any business that admits variety of degrees, as getting Learning, and Religion doth.] Both the proportion of Continuance, and of Frequency, even either of them, is very material, and a substantial advantage or disadvantage toward Learning and Religion, (according to the largeness or scantiness of it) and that in an ethical and Theological Consideration. But of Place we now say, there is no such thing to be affirmed; of the proportion of Place in any of the dimensions, or all of them, or of the (Vbi of) Place where one waits upon God, in itself considered, and in reference to a man's own particular devotion in solitary worship, or even to domestic or public worship, after the bodily conveniences forenoted be satisfied. A little, low, narrow closet, is equal to a large, high, wide room. And the open field of many miles, long and broad; which hath no limit but the air within the reach of the eye on any side; nor no other covering or bound of height but the Canopy of Heaven, is equal to either. And a cave or grot under ground, equal to them all, and none of them more or less conducible toward Religion than other. Time therefore and Place are not equal circumstances in Religion. But this must be showed more particularly— 2. By observation of any one's progress in Learning, XXVII. 2. Proficiency in Religion, argues a longer Time employed; nothing of Place or Religion, above another of equal capacity, and other helps; A man may certainly judge, even without being told, that the best Proficient hath employed (at least indeterminately) larger proportions of Time, for Continuance or Frequency, or both, toward Learning and Religion, than the other who is behindhand. But who can say so of Place? Who can judge, whether he hath been in a wide room, or a strait? within the house, or in the field? in a Church, or besides the very High Altar? (as the language hath been of late, and the devotions of some, even wherever they have traveled.) He had need be a Prophet, that could tell where such an one had prayed or read; for it can never be gathered from his Piety gotten, or not gotten. Therefore again, Time and Place are not equal circumstances in Religion. 3. The like is evident, XXVIII. 3. Longer Time employed, argues greater proficiency: not so Place. in judging of proficiency in Religion or Learning, (other things being equal) by the Proportion of Time spent and observed toward it. Who so hath observed most, and oftenest Time, may infallibly be judged to have advanced more, than he that hath observed less, and seldomer. And again, a man may by the like reason certainly foretell, without a Prophetic spirit, [That he that observes two hours for another's one, and so proportionably a greater Continuance and Frequency remarkably, will make a remarkable benefit above the other, answerable to his Time.] But can any man so judge, or so foretell by the Place, the Room where a man studies, or prays, or the like? If he would offer to speak so superstitiously of a Church, or Chancel, or the very High Altar; yet rationally he cannot; neither will the event or examination credit his confidence. Therefore still Time and Place are not equal circumstances in Religion. XXIX. 4. A longer Time employed voluntarily, argues greater affections to Religion. No place doth so. 4. A man's employing voluntarily and indeterminately, much or little, often or seldom Time, upon study or devotion, God and his soul, is a clear demonstration (supposing no accidental hindrances) of his greater and earnester affections, than another man's that doth otherwise: and that other man's sleight and faint affection to spiritual things. But doth the Place a man is in, or goes to, show any such thing, unless that it declare a care of being free from accidental hindrances, for which sometimes a wide field is the best security: Or of having accidental helps, as in a Library, or the like? And yet in that Field, or Library, a man may be idle, and sleight, and heartless; even scarce pray, or study at all, though that were his errand thither. But so it is not, if a man observe Time; For than he cannot but pray, and the like, and continue his affection in some sort; Or else he altogether loses his Time, and observes it not. Again then, we say, Much Time employed in Religion, demonstrates, beyond denial, much devotion and affection to it: And little, proclaims it to be little. And so, often, or seldom. But what doth the largeness of the Place commend? or the narrowness disparage? What doth the frequent return to the same Place, or the change of Place, discover of a godly disposition, or a worldly? Again then, Time and Place are not equal circumstances in Religion. XXX. 5. There is wisdom in redeeming Time to Religion, not Place. 5. He is a wise man, that orders his Time aright for his most important businesses, as Study to a Scholar, Religion to a Christian: that though he could not determine the Proportion beforehand, yet redeems Time with the greatest largeness that may be for these things, for Continuance and Frequency both. But what wisdom is there, or can there be, about the largeness, or frequent reiteration of Place, unless merely accidental? Or can a man be properly said to redeem Place, that is, more quantity and room for study or devotion. The Philosopher said of old, [Solius Temporis honesta est avaritia:] It is only commendable to be covetous of Time; of large proportions of it, to redeem it, and employ it to the most useful and important purposes. The very Sentence excludes covetise of Place, and largeness of that, or any thing of it. Reason and Religion say the same. Perpetually then the Conclusion is to be repeated: Time and Place are not equal circumstances in Religion. The evidence of this will yet be more clear, if we come to compare determinate Time, solemn, consecrated Time, with determinate or consecrated Place, toward Religion, the profit and necessity of either, generally and particularly, both with reference to Solitary Worship, and Conjoined, whether Domestic, or Ecclesiastic. Which will afford us many more differences. For, to begin with the general— XXXI. 6. A Time determinate is morall-naturall: So is not Place. 6. A determinate Time for Religion is required by the Law of Nature; And the Law of Nature doth (at least initially) determine an express Continuance and Frequency both, that it may be no less, nor no seldomer, as we have formerly argued. Also without a Sufficient Time determined for all men, We have proved from the Light of Nature, That Religion cannot stand among all men. (We put all these together, for brevity sake:) But is there any such thing in reference to Place? A determinate Place? That there should be a Law of Nature, (Theologicall, not Physical) commanding a determinate set Place for Religion, for any man's single and solitary Worship? or for Domestic, or even for Ecclesiastic? What Religious moral necessity can there be in it? Since we saw before, There is not, cannot be any substantial profit toward Religion, in the proportions, or reiterations, or variations of Places. One room is as good as another, and no better; and an open place as good as a closed room, and no better: Paul's Cross, and Paul's Church are equal: Norwich Green-yard, and the Cathedral. Also, when men go about to build a Place for conveniency and decency, the Law of Nature (Theologicall) is still silent, and saith nothing of the Proportion, (not so much as initially) that it must be at least so high, so broad, so long; Neither doth it necessitate men to come to that Place, after it is built; as appears by the forenoted instances of Paul's Cross, and Norwich Green-yard Sermons. It is true, one man alone may not absent himself; but that is in reference to the assembly, not to the place: For if the Assembly be by any occasion transferred to another place, he is bound by the Law of nature to forsake the former place, and follow the assembly. Neither again doth the light of nature afford any shadow of a reason, to say, that without a sufficient place (sufficient theologically; with reference to God's acceptation, Souls good, and Consciences security, as we saw concerning sufficient Time,) determined for all men; Religion cannot stand among all men? Where then is the pretended clamoured equality between Time and Place in Religion? But this also must be deduced more particularly: XXXII. 7. A 〈◊〉 determinate is necessary to Religion, not to Place. 7. A determinate Time is necessary to Religion; because Solemn worship of God, in the nature of it, cannot be performed, in the Time that a man is busied in worldly matters. But there is no necessity of a determinate Place for Religion. For the self same individual Place, in every respect, without stirring a foot or an inch out of it, will serve to perform Solemn Worship and worldly business, namely at several Times, even one immediately succeeding the other: either first the Worship of God; as in the Parliament Houses, they first begin with a Prayer, and then they proceed to worldly businesses. Or first the worldly businesses, and then the service of God, as our Thansgiving, sitting at table after meat. The same may be every where. All Places are capable of being employed to Religion, by the Apostles sentence; [I will that men pray every where.] Therefore there is no such necessity of a determinate Place, as a determinate Time. And so again, Time and Place are not equal Circumstances in Religion. XXXIII. 8. The unwillingness of men necessitates a Time determinate, not a Place. 8. The unwillingness of men to attend at all upon Religion, necessitates some determination of Time for it: Or else it is certain, that there will be no Religious performances at all by most men. But there is no necessity of a determinate Place for Religion in this respect. It neither can awe men, nor take excuse from them, and so be no remedy of unwillingness, as it is with determinate Time. Even Time alone will command Public Worship; as to say, [Let all such a Village meet to worship God, on such a day; and let every one be sure to meet when the assembly is, at such an hour.] This would call them who are near together, to any convenient Place, and the rest to them. But Place alone appointed or determined, commands nothing. All the year long the Place (once built) is appointed; but never used, till some determined Time come. Place then is nothing to remedy unwillingness, without Time also. But Time without Place is sufficient, at least for Solitary Worship, and even for Conjoined; unless all people be mad to keep asunder, because they will not yield to meet in any Place but one of their own choosing. And the least superiority that can be, is sufficient to draw them to some one Place for that Time, if that Time must be jointly observed by all together. And any Place will serve, as was said before. Time therefore determinate doth all, and Place nothing, Therefore still Time and Place are not equal Circumstances in Religion. 9 XXXIV. 9 The interruptions of business necessitate Time determinate, not Place. The interruptions of worldly businesses do further necessitate a determinate Time, which shall forbid the admitting of any such, during the Continuance determined, and as often as the determined revolution comes about, and at the particular season determined. (Ever excepting reservations of necessity, etc.) And these determined Times, will certainly call upon every man, after they are once settled, if he live, and so long as he lives. But there is no such necessity of a determinate Place. For if there be no Time determined with it, it helps nothing at all against interruptions, or hindrances, or disappointments. It may be built and appointed, and yet never be used (as appears all the week long) and that without fault, if there be no Time to spare, or if the Time be observed in another Place. But the Time determined, (if by lawful authority) must so far forth be observed, notwithstanding ordinary interruptions, or else there is a fault, and sin. Religion then is secured by the determination, and command of Time, even alone; But not by the determination of Place alone, at all, without Time. Time then is the more necessary. And Time and Place still are not equal Circumstances in Religion. 10. XXXV. 10. Want of wisdom necessitates a Time, not Place determinate. To remedy men's want of wisdom suddenly without deliberation and predetermination, to share Time constantly between God and the world, the soul and the body; either of which call for a proportion, both of some Continuance, and of some Frequency; there is a necessity of some determinate Time to Religion. But there is no such necessity of some determined Place: For there is no moral or theological wisdom to be exercised about it, as was intimated before. The same proportion of Place, the same particular and individual Place, Room, Fabric, House, Hall, Temple, Church, is capable of serving both purposes, without seeking a new one, upon any Religious necessity or consideration. It follows then again, that Time and Place are not equally necessary, not equal Circumstances in Religion, XXXVI: 11. Larger Time promotes God's honour, not any Place. 11. The larger for Continuance, and the more frequent for Revolution (so as the body, and bodily occasions can bear it,) the determination of the Time be; the more is God's honour promoted, and the good of men's souls advanced by the observation of it. But by the largeness of a Place determined for Religion, and the constant keeping to that Place, God hath no more honour, neither the soul any more benefit. The least Chapel, that will hold all the company, is equal to Paul's Church, or the largest Church in the World. But so is not an Hour equal to a Day, for Continuance of the proportion of Time; not once a Month, equal to once a Week. There is not then an equality between Time and Place. XXXVII 12. Men may be trusted with determination of Place, not of Time. 12. And now from all this it follows, that men cannot be trusted with the whole determination of Times for Religion. But men may be trusted better with determining the Places; that is, There needs be now no express determination from God, of Places of Worship, to be here or there, or thus big, or thus little, or the like, (nor indeed ever was there but the typical Tabernacle and Temple) but they may well enough be left to the general rules of Conveniency, according to natural reason. Against which yet (to say so much by the way) some of late among us have been bold to transgress, by pulling down Galleries, even in place where the whole Congregation could not hear without them: And worse, in enjoining the Ministers to read part of the Divine Service at a place, where they knew beforehand, he could not possibly be heard by all the people. But these (though the men that cried loudest for order and decency in the Church) could not but know they offended against the general rule of doing all things to edification, that is, the spiritual benefit of Consciences. Which, unless by such wilful opposites of Conscience, cannot be prejudiced (as we said) by leaving the Determination of Places to men exercising reason. Whereas we have showed it to be contrary of Time, that men's reason, helped by all general rules of Scripture suffices not for the making the whole Determination of Times for Religion, and namely, not for the chief sufficient Time for all men. Therefore it will still follow, that Time and Place are not equal circumstances in Religion. But this also we will a little show further in particulars— 13. The want of a Rule to judge of the necessary sufficiency of the chief Time for all men, XXXVIII. 13. Want of a rule to determine Time, necessitates a determination of it: Any understanding man may order Place. proves it not left to men's determination; who could never be able to satisfy their own consciences in making it, or the consciences of others that would not be content with any thing. For they would be so tossed between Necessity on the one side, and Sufficiency on the other, as they could have no rest, nor means of steering a right course. But there being no Spiritual necessity, nor Religious sufficiency in Place, but only for bodily conveniency; An ordinary understanding, even from the experience of the capacity of the Place for worldly meetings, is abundantly able to order that well enough. And besides the skill of Architecture, which is common and certain enough for such a matter, in many Places there are Rooms used to worldly purposes, which might suffice for Religious meetings too. Therefore these Places may well be left to men, to the Church, to any Magistrate, not a Persecutor, (who yet could but hinder open public assemblies) but not Times, not the necessary sufficient chief Time. Again then, Time and Place are not equal circumstances in Religion. 14. If the chief Time were left to men, to the Church, XXXIX. 14. Great hazard to Religion, if Time were not determined: none in Place either the major part of the Determiners would prove zealous for Religion, the Honour of God, and the good of their own and others souls; and then having no indulgence that they could securely plead, of so much Time for worldly businesses, as six Days of seven; they could not but determine more than one Day of seven: which, all that are of our Disputers minds, will cry out upon as an intolerable burden, worse than Pharaohs taskmasters: For this is their language of God's determination of but one in seven; whereby they would persuade themselves and others, that it is not any longer His determination. And to all such men, it would be a vain determination, not regarded. Or else the major part would be more remiss, and less zealous: only taking care, that there might not be too much allotted to Religion, or too little for worldly businesses, and pleasures, and the like. And then those that were conscientious and zealous, (inferiors specially) would never be able, without enduring persecution, to observe any tolerably sufficient proportion of Time for Religion. And in suffering inconvenience or persecution, they would greatly want a steady comfort, having no certain rule to measure their own time by. But there is no such matter of hazard about Place, let it be but convenient for all to hear, (which, unless the Determiners be wretchedly careless, or wickedly tyrannous, it will infallibly be) It may, and will satisfy both sorts, all sorts, as experience shows. Men may then have Place left to them, but not Time. Time, therefore, and Place are not equal circumstances in Religion. XL. 15. Solitary worship requires Time determined: not Place. 15. No man can determine to another, Time for Solitary Worship, to tie his Conscience to observe that Time so Religiously. Also no man can sufficiently and constantly secure Time determined by himself, if it be of any Continuance remarkable, and any thing Frequent: but he shall be interrupted and hindered, specially being an inferior: And no unwilling man may be trusted with determining his own Solitary Time. Yet such Time is necessary to Religion; and part of the chief sufficient Time to all men, is to extend to Solitary Worship. All which pleads for God's determination of the chief Time. But there is no such care to be taken for Place for Solitary Worship. Any Place will serve, or may, where one is alone, or not talked to by others. And the commanding of Time for Solitary Worship, sends to a Solitary Place, if it be possible; or commands a man's silence, and forbids others to, interrupt him: and so if there be not wilful disobedience, Solitary Worship is sufficiently secured by the Time determined, but not at all by the Place; For a man may be in a solitary Place, and sleep, or muse of the World, and that without blame, unless within the Time determined for Religion. While therefore God determines the Time, the Place may without prejudice be left to men. XLI. 16. One commandment of the Decalogue requires that God determine Time not Place. And so Place and Time are not equal circumstances in Religion. 16. As the words of one of the Commandments of the Decalogue, expressly determine the chief Time for Religion to be one whole Day of seven. So the general scope of the same Commandment (or part of the general meaning of another Commandment of the decalogue) requires, that no Time be observed as necessary to Religion, but what God himself appoints. Yet the chief Time is to be observed as necessary to Religion, even by all men, and so cannot be appointed by men, but only by God himself. But no Commandment of the Decalogue mentions Place for Religion, neither doth the general meaning of any Commandment, suppose any Place as necessary to Religion, in a moral sense. Or any Commandment of God appear any where in Scripture about Place for moral worship, no not for public, much less for domestic, or solitary: that it should be so or so, here or there, according to any of the natural considerations of Place; But all is wholly left to men, (and ever was, we say, for Moral Worship.) Place then again and Time are not equal circumstances in Religion. 17. As all Time is Gods, and none ours for worldly business, XLII. 17. All Time is Gods, all Places are ours. but by his indulgence. And indulgence of his we have none, that we can securely challenge (sufficient for worldly occasions) but the six Days in a week mentioned in the fourth Commandment; which indulgence cannot be perpetuated without the perpetuating also (and first) of the command of one Day of seven for God and Religion. So that without this Commandment and indulgence, we trespass upon God continually, in following our worldly businesses. But as for Place, though the whole earth be Gods, yet in express terms, He hath given it to the children of men, Psal. 115. by a general indulgence. Neither calls for any of it back under the New Testament, (as he did a little spot for typical use of old,) any place is convenient for so many bodies, serving all the necessary turns for Religion. And so there is no Trespass upon God, in point of Place; if there be but an observation of his appointed Times in any Place. Whence still the same conclusion rises, Time and Place are not equal Circumstances in Religion. 18. men's souls need a singular blessing, XLIII. 18. There needs a blessing to make sufficient, not so for place. to make any Time less than all, sufficient for their souls, which have so manifold necessities, and are so infinitely more worth than all bodily occasions. Which blessing as none but God can bestow, so is there no ground to expect it, but to his own appointments and determinations. And such blessing He annexed to His determinations of Time, Gen. 2. and Exod. 20. But there being no influence of Place into the soul; any Place is sufficient, which is sufficient for the body's convenience; And so no blessing is to be expected with relation to the Place. But only to the meeting, and to the observation of the Time so appointed by God, neither did God ever bless any Place for Religion, but only typically. In this then also Time and Place are not equal Circumstances in Religion. XLIV. 19 The necessary Time for Religion, is properly holy, so is not any Place. 19 The Necessary Time for Religion, is properly holy, and the sufficient Time acceptable to God (or else it could not be counted sufficient.) But no Place is, or can be now properly holy, or acceptable to God. Nor was ever any Place so of old, in a moral sense, or with reference to Moral Worship; But only typical. The Synagogues are not where called holy Places in Scriptures: No not the very court of the Temple where the people meet to pray, and hear, and the like. Neither were they suffered to go at any Time into that holy Place, but the Priests only, and only the High Priest, and but once a year into the Holy of Holies on the day of Atonement. All to teach the people, that all the holiness (and acceptation of service) in the Temple, was only typical, which when it should cease, all holiness of Places should withal cease, and no more acceptation to be expected from the service presented in any Place, with reference to the Place, or any consecration of it to Religion. So though we may now consecrate, or set apart Places for Religion, (as the Centurion, a Gentile, of his own accord, and in love to the Jewish nation, as themselves say, and not as an act of devotion, built them a Synagogue, Luke 7.5.) Yet can we neither make them Necessary, Holy, nor Places of acceptation. Place and Time therefore are not equal circumstances in Religion. XLV. 20. The New Testament honours a Time, viz. the Lords Day: no Place as the Lords house. 20. Finally (to wind up divers things in a few words) The New Testament honours a Time, with the glorious title of God's possession, the Lords day, which Day for Continuance, Frequency, and Order, may be observed all the world over (with but a little difference, according to the climates,) how many millions soever of Christians there be in the world. Which joint serving of God, eminently redounds to his great honour; and is the greatest exercise of the Communion of Saints upon earth; from which no persecution, imprisonment, or the like can hinder them, so long as they have but spirits enough to lift up their souls to God. But the New Testament dignifies no Place now, with the title of the Lords house, His possession. Neither can all Christians now, because of the Church's amplitude, meet in one Place. And if any would say, all their places of meeting might be of the same proportion all the world over. We Answer, It is indeed possible in nature; but altogether improbable, (and next to impossible) in practice, that it should be so, without a divine command: For it were altogether ridiculous in reason, as it would be, to have all men wear of the same bigness and length. Besides this would only be public Places, not domestic, much less solitary. And again, persecution and imprisonment might hinder from using these. Once more then, Time and Place are not equal circumstances in Religion, nor fit to be equally left to men, to the Church's determination, or any other. And so we doubt not but we have sufficiently evinced this assertion, as well as the former. If any think, XLVI. The conclusion. we have spent too many words about it; let him thank our disputers confidence on the contrary side, which hath in a sort forced us to it, while withal we have given a kind of recapitulation of some principal heads in the foregoing Chapters, which some Readers perhaps will not be sorry for. We end with this advertisement, That if we had listed to make ourselves or our Readers merry, in so serious a subject as our general matter is, we would not have wished for a handsomer subject than this paralelling of Time and Place as equal. But we durst not be light in so weighty a cause. And now we have a third Corollary to add, That the chief Time is a part of worship, and not a mere circumstance, which will be yet another proof of its being above Place. But this is for the next Chapter. CHAP. XII. The necessary sufficient chief Time for Religion, together with the Particular Day for it, is a Part of Worship, and not a mere Adjunct or Circumstance only. I. A third Corollary: The necessary sufficient Time is a part of Worship. THis Assertion we conceive to be a necessary Corollary from our foregoing Discourses: Yet is usually denied, even by some who differ not from us in the main grounds of it. Therefore we judge it expedient to be subjoined, and cleared; Because also we are persuaded, it will not only add a little more light to some things already laid down; but likewise somewhat more awe the Consciences of every one in the point of strict observation of the whole Lords day in a weekly revolution. For if men be once fully convinced, that not only the performance of such particular Duties, as that Day is usually spent in, by these that are devout, whether in public, or in the family, or alone, (as Prayer, for instance, and reading the Word) are Parts of Divine Worship; But even that the observation of this particular Day, and that weekly, all of it, in varieties of Duties of Religion, one or other, all our waking time, is also itself a Part of Divine Worship, and beyond the nature of a mere Adjunct or Circumstance of Worship: We doubt not, but they will be a great deal the more careful and conscionable in the observation of the whole Day, and every part and parcel of it. II. The question explained. To effect this, we must first clear what we mean by a part of worship; and what by a mere adjunct or circumstance of worship: and so state the question between us and those of the contrary opinion, and then bring our arguments, and vindicate them and our assertion from the contrary exceptions and objections. We say then— 1. What worship is, and what a part of worship. 1. Worship, generally, is the tender of our homage to God, and giving Him immediate honour. Accordingly, a part of Worship, is whatsoever is presented to God, (whether thing or action) as a special homage, and as an immediate honour to Him. Or at least ought to be so, if it be not: 2. What an adjunct▪ or circumstance of worship. 2. An Adjunct or Circumstance of Worship, (which is merely such) is, That which is not (or ought not to be) presented to God, any special or immediate Honour to Him: but only serves and is used as an accommodation to the performance of some thing or action which is properly Worship, or perhaps is only an unthought of accident, naturally or occasionally accompanying that thing or action which is Worship. 3. Withal it is to be considered, 3. The same thing may be both a circumstance, and part of worship. that the self same thing which in one case is but an Adjunct barely, a mere Circumstance, and ●o way a part of Worship, may in another case be more than a Circumstance; and a proper part of Worship, being specially, and immediately tending to God's honour, and tendered with that intention, and to that end. Some instances will clear all this. 1. The sacrificing of a Bullock (or Sheep) was a part of God's worship under the Law. 2. The Sex, that it was male, or female: The Age, that it was so many months, or weeks, or years old: The Colour, that it was red, or black, or white; Was in many cases a mere Circumstance, not regarded, nor to be regarded. 3. Yet in some cases it must be a male, not a female; in others, a female, not a male. So, in some cases, so young, and no elder; in others, so old, and no younger, (as in the firstling males, it was to be seven days with the Dam, nor more, nor less; Num. 19.2. and the eight day to be offered.) And in the Water of Expiation, the ashes of the Heifer was to be of a red Heifer, of such an age precisely. In all which, those very circumstantial considerations were properly parts of Worship, Of the Homage to be tendered to God, and immediately to His Honour. 4. Furthermore it is to be observed, how any thing, III. 4. How any thing comes to be a part of worship. whether seeming to be substance, or circumstance, comes to be a part of Worship. Which may be resolved two ways. 1. As Worship comprehends under the term, both true worship, and false worship, or Right worship, and Will-worship; So the cause of it is our intention, to present it as a special homage (as was said) and an immediate honour to God. Such intention, we say, is the formal cause, that such an action is Worship, in him that presents it, 1. The formal cause is our intention. or such a thing, in him that tenders it. And without such intention, no action is formally Worship in any man, however it be in the nature of the action, or in any other person that presents it. As for instance; The repeating of any sentence of Scripture, or the Lord's prayer, intending thereby to honour God, is a part of Worship: But to repeat it, to teach a child to spell, or read, or to understand a language, or to use it as a charm, or the like is certainly no Worship, because it wants an intention of immediate honouring God by it. So, to kneel down before an Image or Crucifix, with intention to honour God by that action, is Worship, (though false and idolatrous:) but to kneel down before it, not seeing it, nor thinking of it; Or to pull out a thorn out of one's foot, or the like, is no Worship: because, again, here wants an intention of honouring God by such an action. 2. The efficient cause is God's command. 2. But now, as Worship denotes only true and right Worship; So the proper efficient cause, and that which both legitimates and necessitates such intention, is the command of God. What He commands to be presented to Him, whether seeming substance, or circumstance, hath the nature of a special Homage, and immediate Honour to Him, and aught to be presented (as often as it is presented) with such intention. From which command also flows an answerable acceptation of such a commanded thing or action, when accordingly performed with that intention: And with that intention there may, and should also be an expectation of such acceptation; whereby the intention is proved in a man's conscience, whether the matter be commanded or not. For Will-worshippers expect an acceptation, though without warrant. And profane Hypocrites, though they pretend to worship God, yet when they intent it not, they expect no acceptation. We say then, our expectation of acceptation, declares whether we tender such a thing as a part of Worship, or use it as a mere circumstance. iv God's command is either particular or general. 5. Yet again, God's command of any thing, as Worship, is either express and particular, of such a special thing; or general, of such an affection; which, according to an allowance of presenting some kinds of things to God's honour, doth present such particulars, or such a proportion, suitable to the degree of the affection, and other occasions. Instances of the first, were the daily sacrifices, expressly commanded of the second, Free-willing offerings, and Vows: As we read of salomon's thousand burnt-offerings on the Altar at Gibeon; and his mighty number of Peace-offerings; two and twenty thousand Oxen, and an hundred and twenty thousand Sheep. Even these being acceptable, fell under the general command, of Honouring the Lord with his substance, which Solomon himself records, suitable to those Times, and his incomparable wealth, and the like Considerations, as of the great Solemnity of dedicating the house of the Lord, etc. 6. Once more, the Command of God of things for His honour, V God's command is either. 1. By the Law of Nature. may either be. 1. By the Law of Nature, that is, of things which in a Rational and ethical Consideration, according to the Light of Nature, may be and are to His honour, either constantly or accidentally, as Prayer to Him, Swearing by His name, 2. Or by positive Law in Scripture. and calling Him to witness, or appealing to Him. 2. Or by Positive Law, in Scripture (which is the only way now; Or of old by Dreams, and Visions, and the like) altogether by virtue of His divine institution and appointments. As the use of Water in the Sacrament of Baptism, and of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper, which being things of common use for worldly purposes, have no other aptitude to be immediately to His honour, But from His own Command. 7. These things thus premised, VI The question stated first by us. we shall briefly state our question thus, We say, the necessary sufficient chief Time for Religion, together with the particular Day for it, is a part of worship, and not a mere adjunct and circumstance only. Hereby we mean, that that Time observed for Religion, is a part of our special homage to God, and an immediate honour to Him; And that it ought to be presented with such intention, as being specially commanded by God, partly in the Law of Nature, namely the Continuance and Frequency being to the honour of God only in a Rational and ethical Consideration, and partly in Scripture, (as hath been showed, Chap. 10.) And accordingly, is specially acceptable unto God, and such special acceptation may be and aught to be expected from God; And so the Duties of Religion are then doubly worship, and doubly acceptable, both in reference to the Duties themselves, and to the Times wherein they are performed. (Only still it must be remembered, that all our acceptation is in and through Jesus Christ.) We say, they are doubly Worship, and doubly acceptable, or trebly, or four fold, as filling up together, the whole Continuance commanded of a Day, and answering the required observation of such a frequent Day, and being presented upon the appointed particular Holy Day. Like unto which there is now no other Time under the New Testament in this complete sort, Worship, or so greatly acceptable: Though there be some other Times that may have a little share also, as we shall see anon. In the mean time, all our indeterminate and voluntary Times (in any respect) so far as they are voluntary, are mere Circumstances of Worship, and no way to any special or immediate Honour to God in their observation, nor any matter of special acceptation, and so not to be presented with any such intention or expectation. This is our opinion and meaning. VII. 2. By others. 8. But now on the contrary, others deny, that under the Gospel any Time or Days at all are parts of Worship; or that the Worship of God consists now at all in the observation of them. Thus one resolutely, O.R. p. 202.2. [We deny that the worship of God can be placed in the observation of any Day, unless we speak improperly. Yet we acknowledge, That in the Holy-days there is a kind of worship of God, as far as they are instituted to the Honour of God alone, and the faithful are congregated to them to holy performances.] But this is very improper indeed; For besides that by being instituted to the Honour of God alone, he means not, that the Days instituted or observed, are any special or immediate Honour to God positively: but only, that negatively they are reduced to His Honour, when they are not instituted to the Honour of Creatures, Saints or Angels, among Orthodox Christians, though they are among the Idolatrous Papists: But besides this, we say, If the Faithful congregating can make a Day a part of God's worship, than any Day, or every Day of the Week, or Year, may be a part of Worship, when the Faithful meet to that purpose; which no man affirms. p. 204.1. But hear him once again. [The worship of God ought to be the end of the indiction of such Days: But the Days themselves are no part of worship, but an adjunct only, or circumstance of worship.] If any man shall say, The learned Professor speaks it only of the Holy Days appointed by the Church. We answer, We know he doth so: But then he must remember, that he makes the very Lords day to be of Ecclesiastical constitution only; which cannot make a thing a proper part of worship; and so the same is appliable to the Lordsday also: But he is not alone in this Assertion: his Fellow- Professor is of the same mind, (which we wonder at) for the Lordsday; when he puts this difference between the Jewish times and ours, [That the very Days, D. Wal. de Sab. p. 93.95. and the Rest upon them, was a part of worship to the Jews: But ours only a necessary circumstance thereof.] Another follows thus: [To speak properly, a Day makes no part of God's service, Primr. p. 250. & 278. under the New Testament: but is only an accidental circumstance thereof.] And again: [Times appointed now, make no part of God's service, and are not appointed, but relative, to the public exercises, p. 287. etc.] We need say no more for the stating the Question: The difference is apparent; They say, The Time is only a necessary circumstance; We say, it is more than so, a special part of worship. Which thus we come to manifest by these ensuing Arguments: [That Time which the Lord requires out of all our Time, VIII. Arg. 1. It is God's portion Ergo, a part of worship. as His peculiar portion, is a part of worship. But the necessary sufficient chief Time for Religion, together with the particular Day for it, is that Time which God requires out of all our Time, as His peculiar portion. Ergo, It is a part of worship.] The Proposition is made good by instances of other things, which being challenged by God as His peculiar portion, became thereby parts of worship, parts of the special Homage due to Him, immediately tending to His Honour. As, 1. The Place which God did peculiarly choose out of all the Tribes, to set His name there, (as the Place often is) the Lord's House, the Lords Temple, was by virtue of such Divine challenge of it, a part of worship, (sc. of the Ceremonial worship) undeniably; and the presenting there their services, was a special part of the Jews homage to God, and an immediate honour to Him; as also a matter of special acceptation with God, (even so far, as that no other legal services were otherwhere acceptable at all, except upon extraordinary command, as Elijahs was, 1 King. 18.) And if it were so with Place then, there can be no reason but it is so with Time now, though not now in a typical respect, but moral, whether natural, or positive, it is all one. 2. So was it also of old with the Tithes, which God challenges as His peculiar portion out of every man's substance, Leu. 27.30, 32. It is said, They are the Lords, His part, His tribute. And so the payment of them was a special Homage to Him, an immediate Honour, a part of worship. And that (which is specially to be noted) antecedent to any particular use which He meant to put them to, and whereto He did afterward apply them, sc. the maintenance of His Priests & Levites. For this we read not of, till Num. 18. which was divers years after. Whereupon it is there (and elsewhere) said, That the Lord is the portion of Levi; that is, Levi should enjoy the Lords portion of Tithes, as also of Offerings. But this use of them was secondary, and we do not say, that in this considration the payment of them was properly Worship. For it was not immediately to God's honour, but only mediate, in as much as those Levites that were maintained by them, were God's Ministers. That which made them Parts of Worship, was antecedent, as we said, to this; Namely, Gods challenging them as His portion, His own primarily and originally, (though now making the Levites His receivers.) Hence the withholding them, is called robbing of God, (not defrauding or robbing the Levites) Mal. 3. And if we understand aright, This is that Sacrilege mentioned Rom. 2. where, after the Apostle had twice said, Thou breakest the same Commandments thou teachest others not to break; Stealing, and committing Adultery: he adds, Thou that abhorrest Idols (or Images) dost thou commit Sacrilege? Dost thou break the same Commandment, viz. the second, robbing God of part of His Worship, by detaining His portion of Tithes? However, to be sure, they were His portion formerly, and so a part of His worship. 3. And so was that share which God reserved to Himself out of the Midianites spoils, The Lords Heave-offering, v. 29.41. Num. 31. which is called the Lords tribute, the Lords portion: And was His, a part of homage to Him, a part of His worship on that occasion, antecedently to the special use. He afterward allotted that also to be disposed of by Eleazar the Priest, as we there read. Now if these things by this means became parts of Worship: So is it in reason, with that Time which God challenges as His tribute or peculiar portion out of all our Time; It must be a part of Worship, in that it is His, allotted to His Honour, antecedent to any particular uses which it is put to, to any particular Duties of Worship, which yet become the employment of it; Namely one or other of them, or more than one, even all the varieties of Duties, do actually employ this Time unto God's Honour. But antecedent, we say, to any particular Duties, the Time being Gods, His portion, is to His Honour immediately, and a part of Worship, and consequently calling for some particular Duties of Worship, to help employ it to God's honour. In a word, Though it cannot be actually employed to God's Honour, without some particular Duties; yet hath it a distinct consideration abstracted from the Duties: As requiring and calling for, and even commanding (as we said formerly of Solemn Time in general) Duties to attend it, some or other. And so is distinctly, by, and of itself, to the Honour of God immediately, as well as the Duties themselves, though not actually separated from all. For that is a contradiction in Religion, to say, [That a Time can be to God's honour, and not be employed in some Religious Duties or other.] But we have said enough, as we conceive, to illustrate and evince the Proposition of our Argument, That the Time which is God's portion, is a part of Worship. The Assumption, [That the necessary sufficient chief Time for Religion, is the Time, which (together with the particular Day for it) God requires out of all our Time, out of all men's Time, as His peculiar portion] that is, above all other Time, hath been proved abundantly in the foregoing Chapters, 9 & 10. And this we also conceived to be meant in those words of the fourth Commandment, The seventh Day, or a seventh Day, one Day of seven is the Sabbath, or a Sabbath of the Lord thy God, or to the Lord thy God; namely, That he being the Lord of all thy Time, (as of all things else that are thine.) hath reserved to Himself, and challenges for Himself, (while He allows thee six Days mainly for thy worldly business) this proportion of Time, of one whole day of seven, The Lord's Day, if from Divine Authority must needs be a part of worship, and more holy than other Days. G.I. pag. 16.9. as his peculiar portion to be sanctified, employed to His immediate honour. And like to this, as we conceive, is the meaning, in the New Testament, of the term of the Lords Day, it is the particular Day which he hath taken and challenges to Himself, as His peculiar portion, out of all the Days of the Week, to be sanctified wholly to His honour, whence the conclusion follows inevitably, That this Time, in all the respects of it, is a part of God's worship, a part of the special homage and tribute due to Him from all men; and specially accepted by Him. We proceed to another Argument, IX. Arg. 2. It is the observation of a moral Commandment of the first tab. e. Ergo. properly respecting the necessary sufficient chief Time, for Continuance and Frequency jointly. Thus— [The obedience to, and observation of, a moral Commandment of the first table, is a part of God's immediate worship. But the observation of the necessary sufficient chief Time for Religion, is the obedience to, and observation of, a moral Commandment of the first table. Ergo, The observation of this Time, is a part of God's immediate worship] Both the Propositions are confessed and granted by our Disputers. Prim. p. 2. Therefore they must own the child issuing from such Parents. The Major is thus expressed, [Whatsoever is moral is universally an essential part of God's service.] The Minor thus [The moral substance of the fourth Commandment is to have a Time regulate, frequent, etc.] And generally they all speak of a sufficient Time as moral natural. It is then a part of worship, a proper and essential part of it, by their own sentence. But we will a little further prove and illustrate it also by our own grounds, and not depend upon them. 1. For the Major, we say, That the Commandments of the first Table, do all of them plainly concern the immediate worship and honour of God; and all the objects of those Commandments, namely the things and actions outward or inward commanded in them, are matters of Divine worship. Therefore the obedience to those Commandments, the observation of them must needs be a part of worship, of our Homage to God, and redound to His immediate honour. For 2. Whatsoever is to be presented to God, by virtue of a moral Commandment of the first table, is to be Presented to Him, by all men, as a special homage they all own to Him, (as when a Landlord keeping court, requires all his tenants, to attend him such days in a year, from such an hour to such an hour till he dismiss them, this Time as a part of their homage to him their Landlord,) and as an immediate Honour to His Divine Majesty, being so presented; and accordingly it is certainly, specially acceptable to Him. Therefore it is most properly a part of worship, and far beyond the nature of a mere adjunct or circumstance: in that the description of a part of worship, formerly given, fully agrees to it. 3. If Gods Ceremonially positive command can make a thing, any thing, Num. 19.2. etc. Heb. 9.13. a part of worship, as a bunch of Hyssop, a thread of Scarlet or Purple wool, dust of the Tabernacle, the Ashes of a Red Heifer, and the like, as no man can deny but it was of old, of which yet no Moral or Rational cause can be given, but only the Sovereign will of God requiring such things as a part of His worship: much more must it be acknowledged, that a moral command of God (whether natural or positive) for which a clear, and moral reason may be alleged, that such a command is to God's special Honour (as also to our great good,) must needs make the obedience to, and observation of any thing so commanded, a part of His worship, without control; unless any will say, that a moral command hath less force in it then a ceremonial. 2. For the Minor, 1. That the necessary sufficient chief Time for Religion is moral, even moral natural; namely, that the law (and light) of nature commands, there should be such a Time observed, A Frequent Time of convenient Continuance necessary and sufficient for the chief Time; that is, we all must observe no less so often; and no seldomer so much; But so much so oft is necessary: Again we need observe no more so often, nor no oftener so much for the chief Time; But so much so oft is sufficient: All this we have proved at large Chap. 9 And this cannot but be within the compass of one of the Commandments of the first Table, which comprise among them all that concerns Religion, as our adversaries confess often, and we have also proved Chap. 10. The observation then of this Time, is certainly, the obedience to, and observation of a moral Commandment of the first Table. 2. We have also proved Chap. 10. that this chief Time, can be determined by none but by God himself; and if that be so, then unquestionably the words of the fourth Commandment contain that determination of God for the chief Time; and one Day of seven is it, and is moral in that Commandment: And so the observation of it, is both the observation of the chief Time for Religion; and the obedience to, and observation of, the morality of the fourth Commandment: And thus both our Propositions being confirmed, the conclusion follows assuredly, That the observation of this chief Time, is properly a part of worship, of God's immediate and essential worship. A third Argument proceeds concerning the particular Day for the chief Time, that it also is a part of Worship, X. Arg. 3. It is commanded by God for His worship. Ergo. as our assertion holds forth. [Whatsoever is certainly commanded by God for his Worship, is a part of his Worship. But the particular Day for the chief Time, is certainly commanded by God for his Worship. Ergo. The particular Day for the chief Time is also a part of Divine Worship.] The Major cannot be denied; it being the command of God that makes any thing, (and every thing) a part of Worship, nothing is so, without His command in nature or Scripture; how important or necessary it else seem to be: And nothing but is so, upon His command, how flight soever it seem to be, as we shown before of a bunch of Hyssop etc. The Minor we had also proved in the tenth Chapter by divers arguments, and in the ninth Chapter there was this, which we think it not amiss briefly to repeat. [That the number, (or Frequency) of Days being once commanded by God, as namely a seventh Day in the fourth Commandment; If the particular Day come to be changed, or to cease and be out of date, the immediate next Day, doth by virtue of that Commandment of the number, of one in seven infallibly and presently come in Place of it (as heir at the Common Law, and as the successor of a successive Kingdom, immediately upon the death of the former King,) unless any new one should be expressly set up, by the same authority that commanded the number of one Day in seven.] So that God having commanded, the number of one Day in seven for the chief Time to Religion in a constant revolution, which is to leave six Days still together for work, and a seventh Day to be a Sabbath, Immediately upon the change of the particular Day for the chief Time, which of old was the last of the seven: Immediately (we say) upon the ceasing of that, and its growing out of date, the very next Day, which is the first Day of the next week comes in the stead of it, even in the silence of God, as being already commanded by the fourth Commandment, which determined the number, and so remains as commanded by God; and is therefore a part of His Worship now, as well as that former particular Day was; which none denies. XI. The objections answered. Except. Prim. p. 2. Now these Arguments a man may think were clear enough to carry this cause. Yet some thing is pretended against them, at least against our assertion. Let us therefore now consider it. Thus one excepts: [The Time under the Old Testament, made a part of God's service, not of the moral, but of the Ceremonial and Typical service, established then in the infancy of the Church, which was not to continue, but ●ring the Time.] To this we answer. 1. That though this be true of the other Festivals, yet we deny it of the weekly Sabbath, one Day of seven. For as much as it cannot be denied, but it was then (and we have proved, and shall do yet further in that next part, that it is still) the chief Time determined by God for all men, and so morally commanded to all men, from Adam to the world's end; and as such, it was (as we have now argued) and so is still, a part of God's worship, of his moral worship, and in no respect ceremonial. 2. As for the particular Day, which then was commanded for that chief Time; though we grant it was not Moral, that is, perpetual, but only Temporary, for that world from Adam to Christ; as also we deny not but God to the Jews annexed some Ceremoniality to it, which use made it more a part of worship for that Time, viz. of the typical worship: Yet forasmuch as that which generally and properly made it a part of worship, was not this or that particular use, but the express command of God: In like sort, though the particular Day now have no Typical use under the Gospel, Yet being commanded by God, and being His peculiar Portion, It also is a part of His worship, as we have said. But we have an other Objectour, who more largely prosecutes the Negative against us, and the most largely of any that we have seen; and that is the learned Professor, D. Walaeus. And we cannot wonder so much (as we said) at any, as at him; For he grants two things, which most of the rest of the Disputers deny. 1. That one Day in seven is Moral, that is, perpetual, by the fourth Commandment. 2. That the Lordsday is of Divine, though Apostolical institution. Now say we, the observation of a Moral Commandment of the first Table, and of a Divine institution, according to that Commandment, is (as we have argued) a part of Worship. This he did foresee would be objected against himself, and therefore he prevented it as well as he could; Thus he frames the Argument; [All obedience yielded to the Commandment of God is religious: Therefore if one Day in seven be to be observed by Divine command (which is his own opinion) it is also religious, and so a part of Worship.] Let us see how he will avoid this Argument. Thus he says, [This hurts them also, D. Wal. p. 95. that hold some Time to be observed by the Morality of the fourth Commandment. For that Day or Time once appointed (be it what it will) is religiously to be observed, and consequently a part of Divine Worship.] This witness is true, and the argument of force against them all. Thus far therefore he hath answered nothing, but against himself. XII. Object. 1. Answered. He comes therefore to lose the knot; and to object against the contrary opinion. [The religiousness of this Day of ours (one Day in seven) or the Lordsday, is to be measured, by the intention of the Commander, that is, God. For if He command any Day to be observed as a part of Worship, or as a Sacramental Type, than it is so to be observed with that religiousness, as it is commanded. But if only as a necessary and determined circumstance of Worship, or necessary policy in the Church, than it is only in that manner and intention to be observed.] To which we answer many things. Sol. 1 1. Where doth this different intention of the Lawgiver appear in the Old or New Testament; That He will have the Times of the jews observed as Parts of Worship; Ours only as necessary Circumstances thereof? Certainly, according to himself, one and the same fourth Commandment is Moral for the observation of one Day in seven, both then and now. But there is not the least appearance of this difference in that Commandment. If one Day in seven was commanded as a part of Worship then, It is so now: Or if it be now only a circumstance of Worship, it was so then; for aught appears, either there or any where else that we know of Nay his own first argument is yet unanswered: All obedience yielded to the Commandment of God, is religious. Therefore the very command of God, of itself, makes the observation of one Day in seven a part of Worship. Sol. 2 2. Whereas he adds (a Sacramental Type) as if that made it a part of Worship; which being wanting, our Day is not a part of Worship; as he would seem to infer. We answer, 1. The Sabbath, according to his opinion, was instituted from the beginning, even in innocency, and therefore could have no Sacramental Type annexed to it. Yet than it was a part of Worship commanded to Adam by God himself. 2. Again, a Sacramental Type, may perhaps make a thing more a part of Worship; But a thing may be a part of Worship, that hath no Sacramental Type annexed to it. For the command of God alone, without any Typical respect, may and doth make any thing a part of Worship (as singing, for example, against which if it were not commanded, a man might perhaps except somewhat as unseemly for sober men. One Day in seven then, being still commanded by God, in a Moral Commandment of the first Table, It remains still a part of Worship, the Type removed from it, or rather from the particular Day belonging to it. 3. Whereas he says, we observe our Day, not as a part of Worship, Sol. 3 but as a necessary circumstance of Worship; he seems to think, that a thing cannot be both a necessary circumstance, and also a part a Worship. Whereas a Day may be, and must be both of these, if commanded by God: A necessary circumstance to those Actions or Duties of Worship, which are actually performed on it; and a part of Worship in regard of the Divine command of the Day or Time itself. Yea, D. Wal. p. 95. & 63. himself at least twice calls the seventh Day of the jews a circumstance, So that their Day also was a necessary circumstance of Worship, and yet a part of Worship. Certainly, a necessary circumstance of Worship commanded by God himself, is a part of Worship. But (says he) one Day in seven is a necessary circumstance of Worship, commanded by God himself in the fourth Commandment: Therefore it is a part of Worship. 4. It may not be amiss to add a few words more about the Sol. 4 phrase of a necessary circumstance of worship: Because it is often used by divers, and usually mistaken, and misapplyed. We have formerly touched it, yet it may be convenient to do it again, It may signify a naturally, or physically necessary circumstance to this, or that, or any action of worship: and then we easily grant, that such Time, so considered, is no part of worship, no more than the Place wherein one is by a like natural and physical necessity, at the Time that he performs any action of worship. But this is not the Time we are disputing of, for this is only indeterminate and common Time, as we have spoken heretofore. But we are now disputing of solemn and determinate Time, and that in the highest rank of solemnity, determined not by man, but by God himself, both in Nature and Scripture, for the chief Time, and in Scripture for the particular Day. This therefore may be, and must be a part of worship, though the other is not, nor cannot be. Or secondly, a necessary circumstance of worship, may signify a circumstance, Morally or Theologically necessary to worship. And so worship, doth not signify this or that pacticular Duty of worship, but generally Religion and the honour of God. For under the Old Testament, indeed, some Times were Theologically necessary to some Duties of worship, namely, by Divine express command, as the 14. Day of the first month yearly to the Passeover, (unless in the reserved case of uncleanness, or a journey, and then the 14. Day of the second month) and so the other Festivals, The Festivity and worship was to be necessarily performed on such Day's yearly; and the particular Days, and yearly revolution, were Theologically necessary to such particular Duties of worship. But under the New Testament there is no such thing, there is no Duty of Religion, no particular Duty of worship, that Morally and Theologically must necessarily be performed on the Lordsday; and on no other Day: Neither is there any particular Duty of worship, (Prayer only excepted, which can never be wholly excluded, when we have to do with Religious Times, or Duties of worship) necessary to the observation of the Lordsday, absolutely or infallibly. So that in a Theological or Moral sense, it is not proper, nor true to say, that either the continuance of a whole Day, or the revolution of that whole Day once in seven Days, or the particular Day, the Lordsday, is a necessary circumstance to any particular act of worship; But only to worship, to Religion in general, in the manner forenoted, as commanded by God for the chief Time, according to the Law of nature and Scripture, and for the particular Day according to both Old and New Testament; And in such a sense being Morally and Theologically necessary, this Time, in all the respects of it, (call it a circumstance, or adjunct, or what you will) cannot be avoided, but it will have the nature of a part of worship; according to any right description of it. XIII. Obj. 2. Answered. But he still goes on, striving rather to explain, then to deliver himself from his former Argument, by instances; [As courser fare, or meaner apparel, in time of mourning, hath no more holiness in it then any other; but only is subservient to worship, and holiness: And as a Day of Fasting is no more holy than another, but serves to holiness, etc. Lastly, as the hours of the morning and evening sacrifices, every Day, were not more holy than other hours of the Day, but as circumstances only to be observed.] So, (for so he would infer, as we conceive) the Days of the New Testament are but circumstances of worship, not any parts of worship. To this we answer, First, the difference between the things compared Sol. 1 (at least as he seems to understand them) is very great; as much as the Divine institution, and the want thereof. For he confesses, that one Day in seven is moral, and commanded by God in the fourth Commandment: But as he seems to take the other things, we have no command for them. Otherwise, when God ever did, as of old, command the abstinence from some kind of meats, from some kind of apparel, and commanded sackcloth, etc. Those observations were a part of the legal worship. And when God ordained an annual Fast, that very Day, in its observation, was a part of worship, as well as the Sabbath. But when men voluntarily set apart Days to Fasting and Prayer, the particular Days are no parts of worship, but only means subservient to the worship of God, because they have no Divine command concerning those particular Days. So when men appoint Holidays (as they are called) they are no parts of worship, but only circumstances, subservient to it. But if God have appointed any Time, (as even according to this Author, He hath one Day in seven by the fourth Commandment) that Time must needs be a part of worship, as well as a necessary circumstance to Holiness and Religion. And this his third instance doth help to manifest. For though the precise point or minute of Time was not commanded for the Morning or Evening sacrifice, yet the Time was within a latitude; It might not be before such an hour, nor after such an hour, (as the Jewish Authors expressly name the bounds, understood by them:) So that we may also well say, that the observation of them within that latitude, not sooner, nor later, was a part of Worship, part of the Jews special homage, part of the immediate honour they owed to God, and whereunto they were infallibly bound by Religion, and conscience of God's command, namely to observe such seasons of Time strictly in such revolutions. And to have performed the same services, sacrifices: which neglect of those special respects of Time, had made them guilty of violation of God's worship. Also from hence they had intimations at least of promises of blessing and acceptation special, even with relation to the very Times observed, besides the particular services presented on them. And the services than presented according to those times, were more acceptable than others presented at their own voluntary times Therefore Elijah waits for the Time of the offering the evening-sacrifice, 1 King. 18. Even when he was to present his extraordinary sacrifice and worship. And David mentioning acceptation, saith not barely, as a sacrifice, but as an evening-sacrifice, Psal. 141. There came a special blessing to the three Kings distressed for water at the Time of the offering the meat-offering, 1 King. 3. And even in daniel's Day of solemn Humiliation and Fasting, the Angel comes to him with a gracious and comfortable message at the Time of the evening sacrifice, Dan. 9 All these intimations show, that there was a peculiar respect had to those Times, those Hours, both by men, and even by God himself. They were then specially acceptable, and parts of worship. The chief Time then, the Sabbath, much more. Sol. 2 2. Let it be considered, whether by this kind of arguing, this Author do not make all Days under the Gospel equal, and so in the issue contradict himself. For if Times and Days, now, be not parts of worship, but only necessary circumstances of worship (in his sense) than the LORDS Days are no holier, no better than other Days, on which any worship is performed; For they are also necessary circumstances of that worship performed on them. But to say, and hold, that one Day in seven is moral by the fourth Commandment, is to say, that all Days are not equal; and if now this be not a contradiction, let the Readers judge. XIV. Obj. 3. Answered. He hath only one thing more to object [That in the New Testament no such promises are made to the observation of our Day, as were to the seventh Day of old; but only to the exercises of piety and public worship.] And hence he would, it seems, infer, that it is no part of worship. Sol. 1 But to this we answer, 1. We find no express promises made to the seventh Day, in the beginning, when it was (as he holds) given to Adam: Yet no doubt were employed in God's blessing and sanctifying the Day, and so it may be now. Sol. 2 The promises were not made (to speak properly) to the seventh Day, but to the Sabbath, or rather to the observation in duties of piety and Religion, which is the employment of the Sabbath. And if one Day in seven be required now, (as he holds) the promises do in like manner belong to it. What command of God, or Ordinance of Religion is there, Sol. 3 which is not attended, in the very nature of the thing, with promises? As godliness in general hath all the promises; So every duty of godliness hath its share; This Day then being commanded, being God's ordinance, a duty of godliness in its observation, is not without promises. It was less needful to make new promises to this Day in particular, Sol. 4 since they are made already, (Gen. 2. Exod. 20. Esa. 58. as we have seen) unto God's Day, His Sabbath, the Day of His appointment for the sufficient chief Time of His Worship. Look therefore as the duties of the Day (a holy rest) fall on our Day by virtue of the fourth Commandment: So by the same equity and analogy, the Blessings annexed to that Day, fall on our Day, on the right observers of it. And so all his Objections are satisfied; And our Conclusion good, [The chief Time, and the particular Day for it, is a Part of Worship, not a mere Circumstance. We will now close this Chapter, XV. The testimonies and confessions of the adverse party Hooker Eccles. Pol. lib. 5. p. 378. with some Testimonies and Confessions. 1. The judicious Hooker, holding one Day of seven to be moral, and of perpetual obligation by the fourth Commandment, (as we shall hear hereafter) thus delivers his Judgement concerning the nature of this Time: [It cannot 〈◊〉 denied, but the very Law of Nature itself requires the sanctification of Times.— For which cause, it hath pleased God heretofore 〈◊〉 exact some part of Time by way of perpetual Homage.] Where by Homage, he means a piece of part of service which we own to God, the Lord of time, and us, by the fourth Commandment. 2. Hear our Adversaries. G. Irons. p. 88 challenging a tribute of our Time. p. 70. G.D. p. 21. There aught to be a certain part of our Time given to God. p. 59 B. of E. p. 121. [That God should have a Tribute of our Time for Public Worship, was never by any man denied to be Moral and Natural.] By Tribute, he means, we suppose, a Part of Worship; as Tribute paid to Kings, is a Part of the Homage and Honour due to them. 3. Another thus: [The Heathens had their Feasts and set Days consecrated to the worship of their gods.] That is, (as we think he cannot but mean) Not only they did worship their gods on those Days, but did observe those Days as a part of worship, in honour of their gods. 4. This follows also upon that of the learned Bishop. [The Religious observation of holy times is reduced to the fourth Commandment, as a special to a general.] But say we, The Religious observation of holy times, by the fourth Commandment, is a part of worship. 5. For this was preached at Court, and not long since printed by Command. D. Turner's Sermon at Whitehall March 10. 1635. p. 19 Statut. 1 Carol. [The Religious observation of the Lordsday, who doubts but it is a part of God's immediate worship?] 6. Finally, The King and State have proclaimed as much. [Forasmuch as there is nothing more acceptable to God, than the true and sincere worship of Him, according to His holy will; And that the holy keeping of the Lordsday is a principal part of the true service of God.] We have what we have argued for; And with this we rest, and end our first Part. FINIS.