The Christian Sabbath Vindicated, Part 1 · Chapter 10 (2 of 3)

The Christian Sabbath Vindicated · Part 1 · Chapter 10 (2 of 3)

p. 257If it be objected, that the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, XXIX. An Exception anſwered.or the Church hath authority to appoint a publike Day of Faſting and Humiliation, and this to be ſpent in Religious Duties, as well private as publike, till the end of the Day; and if ſo, why not for the ordinary chiefe ſolemne Time?

We Anſwer in a word,Sol. that the Continuance of a publike Faſt is before hand determined by God in Scripture, and in the Nature of the buſineſſe, to a whole Day, and no leſſe Continuance, (neither did ever any Orthodoxe Church ſpeake otherwiſe of it, though we know the Popiſh mock-faſts, or foole faſts, end often at noone) ſo that all that the Church doth, or the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, is to appoint and determine the particular Day, or the Frequency of Dayes, upon ſome ſpeciall occaſions; and to declare that the Continuance is to be extended ſo long, with penalties Civil or Eccleſiaſticall on them that ſhall be knowne to tranſgreſſe it, even within doores, otherwiſe they doe 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 buſineſſe of ſolemne humiliation, (and the prevention of all tolerable ordinary excuſes by the publike appointment) no mans conſcience were bound to obſerve the whole Day, at home, and in ſolitary Worſhip, before and after the publike, becauſe of the Churches, or Magiſtrates authority and determination, for the reaſons before ſet downe. Another Argument followes, which is a fifth, againſt the Churches authority to determine the chiefe ſolemne Time.

p. 258Even againſt that authority which our Adverſaries thinke moſt infallibly certaine to belong to the Church; namely for the publike Worſhip. Againſt which, thus we argue.

XXX. Arg. 5. The Church cannot command a…l her members to obſerve the time in publike worſhip.[If the Church have authority to determine the chief Time of Worſhip for all its members, in reference to the publike Worſhip: Then it hath authority to command all its members, conſtantly to obſerve that Time in the publike Worſhip which it determines for it. But the Church hath not authority to command, all its members conſtantly to obſerve that Time in the publike Worſhip which it determines for it. Ergo, The Church hath not authority to determine the chiefe Time of Worſhip to all its members in reference to the publike Worſhip.] The conſequence is certaine, from the ſtate of the queſtion, formerly laid downe. 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 doe every where make it Morall Naturall to obſerve publike worſhip, and contend that it is the whole morality of the fourth Commandement, to command publike 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 publike worſhip, is an expreſſe command of a conſtant obſervation of ſuch publike worſhip, even by vertue of the Law Morall Naturall, and the whole remaining force of the fourth Commandement. 3. Likewiſe it were a meer 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 owne conceits, contradicting themſelves (as we touched a while agoe in a like Argument) Namely, Though they make the publike worſhip Morall Naturall; Yet doe they ſo farre forget themſelves, as to exempt ſhepheards, diggers in mines, ſervants, (ſundry ſorts of them at leaſt, as cookes, and others, and divers other people) from any neceſſity of conſtantly obſerving the publike worſhip. Inſomuch as the tranſlatour of Doctor Prideaux Lecture, imputes it as ſtrange ſuperſtition, that a Towne of his p. 259acquaintance had not a piece of roaſt or baked meat to a Sundaies-dinner, throughout the whole yeere, which muſt needs be becauſe all the ſervants went conſtantly to the publike worſhip. An imputation (to ſay no leſſe of it) worthy the pen of one of thoſe S. Paul ſpeaks of, Phil. 3.19. whoſe God is their belly: otherwiſe, how durſt 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 preferre the publike worſhip of God, before the ſacrificing to their owne bellies, and ſo to take more care, even of every poore ſervants ſoule, by carrying them along to the publike worſhip of God, then to provide for the pampering of their owne guts, though with the pinching or ſtarving of their ſervants ſoules. But to let him paſſe, we urge all of them, (and ſpecially thoſe that diſpute, that the fourth Commandement was not given to ſervants) whether they will averre, [That a ſervant is bound by the Churches determination, to keepe conſtantly to the publike worſhip, from the firſt to the laſt of it, every time that there is any] Notwithſtanding any Commandement to the contrary? If their (perhaps prophane) Maſters, though they beare 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 goe to Church, or come home, before it is ended; and ſpecially if ſuch ungodly Maſters (or parents) ſhall threaten, or beate their inferiours if they doe otherwiſe then they charge them? We ſay againe, what will they ſay a ſervant or inferiour is bound to in theſe caſes? (which are every day one where or other:) Nay, what is an inferiour free to, in theſe caſes? Who hath a ſoule to ſave, and ſo to looke after, and a deſire to uſe the meanes for it, ſpecially Gods publike worſhip; having little or no helpe at all (but hindrance rather) in the family, and exceeding little time for any ſolitary devotions? They cannot here anſwer either way, but they overthrow their owne Principles. For either 1. They muſt ſay, [Servants and inferiours may, and muſt keepe ſtrictly to the Churches determinations for publike worſhip, notwithſtanding any contrary command, or threatning, or cruelty of their ungodly ſuperiours;] Which they will not allow us to urge men to, upon the Commandement and determination of God Himſelfe; and for this, they deny this Commandement of the Sabbath to have layen upon Iſrael in Egypt; and that the p. 260Lords day was ſtrictly obſerved by the Primitive Chriſtians under perſecution. If theſe things be urged againſt us, they cannot reaſonably urge ſervants and inferiours, now to croſſe their ſuperiours upon the Churches determination, even for the Publique Worſhip. 2. Or on the other ſide they muſt ſay, that ſervants and inferiours are not bound, (nay that they are not free) by the Churches determination, to the Times of Publique 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 Publique VVorſhip, which it determines to them.] Of will they ſay, that ſervants and inferiours, are not members of the Church? or that the Churches 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 freedome, if our Church ſay true in her prayers) and are not to give God attendance conſtantly in Publique Worſhip, and ſo conſtantly look after their ſoules? And then what becomes of the Morality of the fourth Commandement for Publique VVorſhip? and what of Publique Worſhip, and a ſufficient Time, at leaſt for it, Morall Naturall? It is beyond our wits, how our adverſaries can expedite themſelves out of the intanglements of theſe contradictions, whereas in our way, all is plaine in three words. [God determining the Time to all, all, even ſevants and inferiours are bound to obſerve it to His honour, and the good of their ſoules & ſo to be willing and carefull 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 Gods 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 redeeme all Time poſſible, to ſerve God, and look after their ſoules by themſelves. And if for this, they incurre their ſuperiours diſpleaſure, they muſt truſt God in that, as well as if they would urge them to lye, or do any other wickedneſſe.

XXXIII. Proved by reaſon.2. Another proofe of our Antecedent againſt the Churches authority even for the Publique Worſhip, in a word, (according to what hath been touch… in a former argument) is, that [If the p. 261Church hath authority to commanded all its members, to obſerve conſtantly that Time in Publique Worſhip which it determines to them: It may command them 2, 3, 4, 5. Dayes in a Weeke, and 5. or 6. or 8. Houres of each of thoſe Dayes, both Maſters, and Servants, Inferiours, and Superiours: and call them from their workes to publique Worſhip ſo often, and ſo long.] But this muſt not be, therefore the Church hath no ſuch authority, even for the Publique Worſhip, and the Times for it.

A ſixth argument is this.XXXIIII. Argument ſixth. The Church cannot make a perpetuall determination. [If the Church hath authority to make this determination of the chiefe ſolemne Time neceſſary and ſufficient to its members for Religion; Then it hath authority to make a perpetuall determination. But the Church hath no authority to make a perpetuall 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 chiefe 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 mans 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 withall perpetuall and unalterable.

The Antecedent, that the Church cannot make a determination perpetuall; Is partly proved by the confeſſion of the adverſaries in this caſe in hand. For they diſpute and argue (divers of them) for the Churches authority at this day; to alter and change the Time, the Lords Day, not onelyonly to ſome other Day of the week, but to ſome other number, greater, or ſmaller. Partly by the general confeſſion of all Orthodoxe Divines (even the Hereticall Papiſts alſo,) that all inſtitutions & determinations & law… of men (even of the Church univerſall,) are in their own not …e alterable; and at leaſt the Church univerſall may alter them in a generall Councell: And ſo that it belongs to God only to make lawes perpetuall and unchangeable. And therefore, ſay we, it belongs only to Him to make this determination of the neceſſary and ſufficient chiefe ſolemne 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. perpetuall and unalterable.

A ſeventh Argument thu… proceeds, [If God have given the p. 262Chriſtian Church this authority to determine the neceſſary, ſufficient chiefe ſolemne 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 ſpirituall priviledge and liberty for Chriſtians. But it is not a ſpirituall priviledge 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 denyed. 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 Weekely Sabbath in the fourth Commandement, 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 voyde all His own former determinations, but in favour to His people now, for a ſpirituall priviledge, and Chriſtian liberty. The Time of the Goſpell being a Time of ſpirituall freedome, above the Time of the Old Teſtament.

The Antecedent may be verifyed ſeverall wayes. 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 dayes than the Jewes had determined to them by God himſelfe. (And if it be abſolutely left to the Church to determine, they may determine as many as they will,) And ſo there wil be leſſe liberty, in that ſence they plead for it, leſſe freedom for worldly occaſions, work, and ſports, then the Jewes had, or then we urge from the fourth Commandement, for one whole Day in ſeven. For two Dayes in a week; or even twenty ſeven Holy dayes in a yeare (beſides the Lords dayes weekely;) which are in our Church, if they muſt be obſerved at leaſt by abſtaining from all work, as ſome urge in their bookes; and to be ſure, the Eccleſiaſticall Courts did urge in practiſe, puniſhing all thoſe that they could prove did work on any part, even of a Holy day; This we ſay, was (and would be) leſſe freedome then the Jewes had, or then we would have, if the Lords day were wholly obſerved, and no other dayes ſtrictly beſides. But they may determine (as hath been ſaid) even twiſe, thriſe as many more dayes, 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 p. 263much as was of old, one whole Day in ſeven (And without an expreſſe prohibition, or pregnant reaſons to the contrary, which our adverſaries in their way, have not yet alledged, this cannot be denied by them:) And ſo keep the number and continuance ſtill, and onelyonly change the Day; (as we ſay is done, but by God, not men:) We aske again, where is the liberty talked of? unleſſe they will ſay it is more liberty to be bound to the Churches determination, even of the ſame proportions of Continuance and Frequency, then to be bound to a Commandement 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-Governours, 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 tyed by ſuch a determination to one whole Day in ſeven, by the Churches authority, as the Jewes were of old by Gods authority, or as we ſay, Chriſtians are now. And if they would ſay,Excep. 2. Sol. the tye were leſſe ſtrict: Beſides that they have not ſhewed wherein, ſuppoſing ſuch a determination, we ſay, then the determination were vaine; For it is vaine 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 tyed ſtrictly to it, particularly in a Law of this nature for a neceſſary and ſufficient Time for Religion, which ſuppoſes a firme obligation to obſerve it, being once determined by juſt authority. We ſay therefore againe, where is the Chriſtian liberty? 3. Even the Governours liberty were but for the firſt turne, 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 univerſall had power to alter it, yet till ſuch an Aſſembly as did properly repreſent the Church univerſall, all Churches had no liberty at all; and however, much leſſe the members of the Churches. 4.Except. 3. If they place the freedome and liberty in determining a leſſe Continuance than a Day, (as indeed this is the maine thing they drive at) We anſwer, 1. that our Church in practiſe,Sol. againſt worke, hath determined no leſſe then a Dayes Continuance wholly; and the 13. Canon of 1603. ſpeaks no leſſe (affirmatively) for the obſervation of the whole Day, though in ſome generall p. 266termes. 2. And then they muſt ſay, that it is unlawfull for the Church to determine a whole Day: which they cannot well doe, conſidering 1. that a whole Day may be lawfully obſerved, by their own confeſſions; and they uſually hold, that what a man may doe voluntarily, the Church may enjoyne to doe. 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 Frequencie. As likewiſe, 3. We have ſhewed, that a whole Dayes Continuance, in a convenient Frequencie, is clearly the moſt profitable diſtribution of the proportion for the chiefe Time, and far more advantagious both for Religion, and worldly buſineſſe, then a leſſe Continuance with a more Frequent Revolution. There is no probability therefore at all, (unleſſe there were a certaine 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 againe, if ſo, This may be ſatisfied with determining it to begin within a quarter of an houre of every ones waking, and to continue till within a quarter of an houre of their lying down to ſleep, (or of midnight) and what remarkable liberty were this, to be granted as a ſpirituall priviledge, and purchaſed by the blood of our Redeemer? (as they ſometimes ſpeake to us in ſcorne, when we name ſome few reſtraints on the weekly Sabbath to the Jewes, 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 ſpirituall priviledge, or Chriſtian liberty, if the Church have authority to determine remarkably leſſe Frequencie, or ſpecially leſſe Continuance then God determined to the Jewes? Remarkably leſſe then a Day? When the ſoules of Chriſtians are toyled with worldly buſineſſes all the week long, and almoſt over grown with the thornes of worldly cares and diſtractions, through multitude of imployments, ſpecially being ſervants and inferiors, or men of great trading, or of much buſineſſe, even in publike affaires, as great Stateſmen; and they long for the Sabbath, the chiefe ſolemne Time, that they may have leiſure to breath toward God, and refreſh their ſoules with converſe with Him, in Publike, Domeſtick, and Solitary worſhip; and ſo provide for Eternity, ſpecially that Day, all other Dayes being p. 265ſo much taken up with temporall and earthly matters: And now the Time is ſo ſhort by a ſcanty determination, that ſpecially as ſoon as the Publike Worſhip is over, they are againe called upon by their earthly buſineſſes, and forced to their worldly drudgery again (as their ſpirituall ſoules will call it) even by others importunities and haunting them, ſpecially themſelves being inferiors. Is this, we ſay, a ſpirituall priviledge, a Chriſtian liberty, for which the blood of the bleſſed Redeemer was (in part) ſhed to purchaſe it? What our Adverſaries conſciences (when they doe 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 ſlaverie and bondage to ſoules and conſciences. And ſo contradictory expreſly to the gracious intents of our moſt gracious Redeemer, whoſe blood hath procured us all advantages to our ſoules that can juſtly be deſired, and in no wiſe left us in worſe condition for our ſoules good, then 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 leſſe, oftener or ſeldomer; ſhall in their voluntary obſervation of any other Time, or in their obedientiall obſervation of their determined Time, be encountred with froward interruptions, (though not of neceſſity ſufficient to be yeelded to by Gods reſervations) or ſpecially be commanded, or threatned, or miſuſed by Maſters, or Parents in oppoſition to it; Were it to be counted a ſpirituall priviledge to have no better ground of ſuffering, then the Churches 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 firme foundation of confidence in ſuffering? Wherein Chriſtians having the expreſſe word of God determining them to this (whatever it be) of Time which they obſerve, they may juſtly triumph and rejoice in any loſſe, or reproach, or ſuffering whatſoever. We conclude then, We diſcerne nothing p. 266leſſe then a ſpirituall priviledge or Chriſtian liberty, for this chiefe neceſſary and ſufficient Time for Religion to be left to the Churches determination. And therefore we ſay, doubtleſſe, ſuch authority of determination was not left to the Church.

XXXVI. Arg. 8. Then a matter of great importance were left to great uncertainties, AsWe argue yet againe in the eighth place, [If this authority of determining the neceſſary ſufficient chiefe 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 ſoules 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 uncertaine, 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 Claſſicall and Presbyteriall 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, &c. above them: Alſo all (but thoſe that are of the Independencie) doe aſcribe a chiefe authority (the chiefeſt that the Church Chhiſtian hath) to a Generall Councell, repreſenting the Church univerſall. (We name not here the Popiſh plea for their univerſall Biſhops authority, as beyond a queſtion among Orthodox and Reformed Churches, among whom our preſent diſpute is.) Now we ſay, that even this Ʋncertainty, and the diſputes about all theſe things, doe ſo exceedingly enervate the ſtrength of any Churches determinations: p. 267as that it is apparently enough ſeen and known, that they are ſcarce any where further obeyed, then men ſtand in feare of the Church-cenſures; and not alwayes then neither, many chuſing to incurre the cenſures, rather then be tyed to ſuch obſervances as they thinke God hath not tyed them unto. Which Principle would be ſure to make any determination, that any Church ſhould make, (except only a Generall Councell of the whole Church; Of which yet we have divers things to ſay by and by) little better then none at all, with many, perhaps with moſt; ſpecially if the Church ſhould pretend to determine the Time to extend to domeſtick, and moſt of all to ſolitary worſhip; as we have ſhewed it ought ſo to extend.

2. Againe, where this is agreed,XXXVIII. 2. What perſons have any votes. that the Churches authority belongs to this or that Aſſembly, Inſtance in any, or all: Yet is it not agreed, nor certaine, in many minds, (who againe, 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 Independencie 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 Provinciall Synod; Others, a leſſe number choſen out of the ſeverall 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 reſtraine 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 Presbyterie, in or neere the City; Others for all the Dioceſe, which therefore they would argue, ought to be but of a narrow extent. Againe, when they come to ſpeak of a Provinciall, 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 p. 268of theſe Aſſemblies, Provinciall or Nationall for inſtance, ſhall be of, before or without the conſent of Secular Princes and States, ſpecially being Chriſtian? And once more, for Generall Councels, what perſons have right to vote there, (we meane not from humane cuſtome, or the like, but divine authority, of which we now diſpute) whether only Biſhops, as ſome ſay; Or Presbyters alſo, as others maintaine; or alſo Lay-men; as not a few doe likewiſe pleade? 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 Councell of Baſill? or by the major part of the whole Councell? Now all this, we ſay, renders our determination in hand, exceedingly the more uncertaine; 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 Civill State alſo, by reaſon that men that while, muſt be ordinarily forbidden all Civill 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 thinke 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 againe, The determination could not be but unſufficient, and unſatisfying greatly, to great numbers of Chriſtians.

XXXIX. 3. Whether they doe not erre, 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 generall Councells, are infallible. The Major part may erre, about the neceſſary proportion, and determine too much, about the ſufficiency, and determine too little. The generall Councell of Ariminum erred about the dinivity of Chriſt, much more may a generall Councell erre about this neceſſary and ſufficient Time. Having ſpecially no certaine Rule to goe by, (as cannot well be denyed, and ſhall be proved fully anon) when the fourth Commandement 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 errour? Or that there is none in their determination, when it is made.

p. 2694.XL. 4. Whether their votes were free. Suppoſe the determination of the Major part of a generall Councell freely voting, be infallible: Yet how uncertaine is it, whether the votes have beene free? Whether the Major part were that way, that is, delivered for the determination? Whether there were no forcing of mens voices, by inſtructions from Princes and States, and threatnings, and the like? We reade of ſuch things in the Acts of Councells. And we read alſo, of Canons pretended to be made by the great Councell of Nice for the Popes Supremacy, which yet were proved to be foyſted and ſuppoſititions. And what then can or ſhall ſecure remote Nations; and ſpecially ſucceeding generations, that the proceedings were regular, the votes rightly given? And this the certaine and infallible deciſion and determination of the Councell? What can doe 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 ſutable to the ſtreſſe 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 remiſſe. undoubtedly made by the Councell, and clearly and fully expreſt: Yet what uncertainty were Chriſtians yet left unto? If by the ſtrictneſſe of the determination requiring a large Continuance and often, any ſhall judge, that the Major part of the Councell were too preciſe, and carried away with an exceſſe of zeale, and ſo have made a determination too burdenſome to Chriſtians, prejudiciall to their Chriſtian liberty, and to their worldly buſineſſes; and ſo that they have layd as neceſſary upon them, a proportion unneceſſary, (ſet aſide their authority) we would faine know of our Adverſaries, what ſuch, who ſo judge, are likely to doe 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 doe, when their deputies were returned from the Councell with ſo unneceſſary and burdenſome a determination of Time to be obſerved as neceſſary? Againe on the other ſide, If by the ſlenderneſſe of the determination, requiring but a ſhort Continuance and ſeldome revolution, any ſhall judge that the Major part of the Councell were too Worldly; and carried away with principles of libertiniſme, and ſo p. 270have made a determination prejudiciall to Religion, and unſufficient for Gods Honour and the good of mens ſoules in reference to the chiefe ſolemne Time: we would faine know againe, what is like to be done upon this? Or what a Nation were after the Councell, 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 generall Councell? And againe, by what rule ſhall they make another? And if the Nationall Church ſhall make another, are not they liable to the other extream? (Nay, if they may wave the authority of the generall Councell, is it not poſſible themſelves may be the miſtakers, and the generall Councell was in the right?) And then 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 ſhewed 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 yeeld 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 …etermining it.We proceed to a ninth Argument, which we thus deliver againſt the authority of the Church univerſall, in this matter. [That which makes the Church univerſall, and all generall Councells to this Day, to be guilty of grievous ſinne, is not to be beleeved 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 univerſall, and all Generall Councells 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 proofe. He ſhould be very audatious, that ſhould offer to condemne, not onelyonly ſome Generall Councells, but all; and not only in one age, but ever ſince the Apoſtles Times, and the univerſall Church withall, as not endevouring the amendment of a notorious fault, as we ſhall ſee.

p. 271The aſſumption may be verified, by declaring 1. That if the Church univerſall have not by ſome Generall Councell, made a cleare and expreſſe 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 univerſall hath not to this day, in any Generall Councell made any cleare and ſufficient determination in this kind.

The firſt of theſe cannot well be denyed. 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 ſoules, and to a law Morall Naturall, as appeares by what our adverſaries confeſſe of the morality of a ſufficient Time to be determined, (even ſuppoſe, but for the Publique 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 univerſall, 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 leſſe ſin (namely, only of Ignorance,) then if through negligence, or any other reſpect, ſo many Generall Councells have forborne to make it: For that were to ſlight Religion, the honour of God, the ſoules of Chriſtians, exceedingly: which doubtleſſe, the Chriſtian Church, and the firſt Generall Councells were not guilty of.

But yet the ſecond is evident enough, that no Generall Councell hath made this determination: Not onelyonly 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 Councell, which was provinciall, ſpeakes plainly, as we ſhall heare hereafter,) much leſſe, for the Frequency, and leaſt of all for the Continuance. As alſo becauſe our adverſaries who aſcribe much to Generall Councells, 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 ſpight is.) And when we alledge any Provinciall or Nationall Councells, averring the Divine authority of the Lords day, and the totall ſanctification of it, and ſo making Canons, not to ordaine, but to confirme thoſe determinations, they p. 272reject them as but partiall Authorities, and not as ſpeaking the ſence of the Church univerſall. Therefore we ſay again, the Church univerſall, either took it for granted (in all the Generall Councells) 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 expreſly, or not tranſmitting it clearely 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 remaines then, but that the very ſilence of the Church univerſall in ſo many Generall Councells as have been held from Conſtantines Time, proclaimes that they eſteemed it (as ſundry provinciall Councells ſpeake, we ſhall heare) concluded before by God and Chriſt and the Apoſtles in the word; and found it in the common acknowledgment and practiſe of Chriſtians. Which as it decayed any where, the provinciall and nationall Councells 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 Generall Councell ſhould take upon them to meddle with this determination; leaſt 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 Conſtantines, 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 univerſall Church in the moſt ancient and primitive, Apoſtolike 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, then it belonged to the Apoſtles and the primitive Church Governours, to make it for all Chriſtians. But it belonged not to the Apoſtles and Primitive Church Governours, to make it for all Chriſtians. Ergo, It belonged not to the Church.] p. 273The conſequence cannot be denyed, for no ſucceeding generation of the Church can have this authority, no not for their own age, if the Apoſtles and Pimitive Church Governours 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 denyed without charging the whole Primitive Church, and then all the Apoſtles alſo with grievous ſinne. The Minor is thus further confirmed. [That which the Apoſtles did in all matters of great importance to Religion, they left cleare and ſufficient record of, for the practiſe of Chriſtians. But there is not left any cleare 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 connot 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 authenticke 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 chiefe Time for Religion neceſſary and ſufficient for Frequency and Continuance. The Minor is no leſſe cleare. Our adverſaries take paines to prove (and we ſtick not to grant them) that the Apoſtles have not in Scripture, nor any where elſe, left any cleare ſufficient authenticke record of any determination of theirs in either of theſe reſpects. Nay they will not ſo much as yeeld, 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 quarrell 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 controverſie 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 appeares (beſides all that we have formerly diſcourſed of the differance between two houres, p. 274or an houre, or halfe an houre (or leſſe) of a Day, and the whole Continuance of a Day for Religion:) even by our adverſaries eagerneſſe againſt us, for urging the neceſſity of a whole Dayes Continuance; and our complaints of them for their ſcantying of God, and ſoules, by diſputing for leſſe. To avoyde then ſuperſtition on the one hand, and prophaneſſe on the other, the Apoſtles (and Primitive Church) if they had had the authority of determining the Continuance, ought to have determined it, and would have determined it, if it had belonged to them; and would have made an authenticke cleare 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 avoyde 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 chiefe ſolemne Time for Religion unto Chriſtians.] But that the Word of God, even in the Old Teſtament, that is, in the fourth Commandement for one whole Day in ſeven, had done it for perpetuity, and they acknowledged it and obſerved it, and medled 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 implyed heretofore (and ſhall again urge further hereafter) the firſt Day of the Weeke came, even by vertue of the determination of one in ſeven, in the roome of it immediately; Beſides what may be argued for Chriſts juſtification of it, when we come to handle that queſtion againſt the Jewiſh Sabbatarians. And this being of leſſe importance then the determination of the Continuance and Frequency; God in His unſearcheable wiſdome 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 chiefe Time for Religion, belong to the Church; Then it belongs to every particular congregationall Church to determine it unto its members; But it belongs not to every particular, congregationall Church, to determine it unto its members. Ergo, It belongs not to the Church p. 275at all.] The Conſequence hath been partly made good already. But we muſt repeate thoſe things briefly, and bring them under one view together, and adde ſome other things to them for fuller confirmation. 1. The practiſe and obſervation of a neceſſary and ſufficient Time for Religion immediately concernes every particular Church, (even every particular conſcience, as we have ſaid) for Gods honour among them, and the benefiting of all their ſoules. 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 ſhewed the great uncertainties that there are, about the determination of this Time, belonging to a Church Nationall or Vniverſall, and the Poſſibilies of their erring either in the point of neceſſity or of ſufficiency, through want of zeale, exceſſe of zeale, and want of prudence: In all theſe caſes, what can be ſaid, but that the authority muſt be devolved to each particular congregationall 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 over-burthened, however it be in other Churches? 4. In caſe any particular Church be in a Paganiſh Country, converted and gathered by meanes of ſome captive Chriſtian, or the like; who yet is able to ſhew no authenticke proofe of any determination of the univerſall Church in this point, nor of any Nationall Church, which this particular Church ſhould be bound to, by vertue of their authority over it; It is of neceſſity that that particular Church determine the Time for it ſelfe and its members. 5. To this Day, as we toucht before, the univerſall Church hath not (nor ſcarce any Nationall Church, of late) made a cleare determination, (or declaration) of the Continuance, of the Day which is by practiſe every where weekely obſerved. How much, we ſay, of the Lords day, is to be kept holy and ſtrictly for God and the ſoule? 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 univerſall Churches determination of it, and ſo of Nationall, and Provinciall, or Dioceſan, or Claſſicall Churches. As alſo (as was argued formerly) in particular Churches default in like ſort; to particular Perſons for themſelves, and their owne ſoules and conſciences ſingle. p. 2766. Finally, the Scripture, upon our Adverſaries ſuppoſitions, is undeniably (we thinke) for this: And ſo is the practiſe of the Chriſtian Church. 1. The firſt certaine intimation we have in Scripture of the new Day obſerved by Chriſtians for Religion, (though this alſo, ſome quarrell with, and queſtion) is Act. 20.7. which was in a particular Church, at Troas; and our Adverſaries will not allow us to inferre from St. Pauls preſence, and obſervation of it with them, that he inſtituted it there; and much leſſe 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 weeke to Religion. Yet it was obſerved then (as they doe 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 practiſe of the Chriſtian Church will ſay the ſame too. For 300 yeeres after Chriſt, there was not (neither could there be till there was a Chriſtian Emperour) any generall Councell. So that the univerſall Church determined it not, neither could it. Nor doe we read any Nationall or Provinciall Councell that ſeemes to determine it, till that of Laodicea, which was neer 300 yeeres after Chriſts reſurrection; Whereas the Lords day was practiſed and obſerved by that name, and the name of the firſt Day of the weeke, in every age from the Apoſtles Times, as we ſhall ſhew hereafter. It muſt be then inſtituted and determined by ſome particular Churches, and imitated by others, and ſo came to be univerſally practiſed: Unleſſe 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 congregationall Church to make this determination.] p. 2771. 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 ſpeake of the firſt, doe not our diſputers now argue one while for Thurſday to be as fit a Day, in memory of Chriſts Aſcention, 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 owne hand, (much, if not altogether) being the Miniſters, and ſo at leaſt the chiefe in authority in the particular Congregations? ſhould we not be likely in a great City, as London, but ſpecially in a Nation, or Kingdome, to have all the Dayes of the Weeke determined by one or other particular Church, namely one by one, and another by another, and ſo others by others? Againe, in ſuch diverſities of tempers, differences of zeale, or worldlineſſe; wanting a ſteady Rule (as we ſhall ſee) and ſo a ground of wiſedome, would there not be greater danger of variety about the Frequency and Continuance? 2. In all Churches, that were neere one another, diverſities of Dayes would breed great diſturbance of one another, and the members of each from others, and hindrance alſo to trafficke, and journies, and all buſineſſe; 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 reproacht by others as over-preciſe, and would be apt to grumble at their owne bondage; And they that obſerved and were tied to leſſe and ſeldomer, would be cenſured as prophane and careleſſe of Religion; and perhaps would be in doubt of the ſufficiency of their Churches determination; and ſo be apt to make a ſchiſme 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 thinke? Or to them and the Ruling Elders together, as others would ſay? Or to the whole people with them, that is, all the men growne, as others would maintaine? Or even taking in women alſo, as the Anabaptiſts doe, in matters of Church-government? And in this, the difficulty would be the greater; becauſe (as we have urged before) the thing p. 278concernes the conſciences of every one exceedingly in a point of neceſſary practiſe for Gods Honour, and their ſoules good; and neceſſary freedome for their ſoules benefit, and neceſſary ſatisfaction for their conſciences. We ſay, this concernes people as well as Miniſters or Elders, and women as well as men; and therefore all muſt have ſome ſhare in the determination: So farre, 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 ſoules, and Gods 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 weakneſſe, 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, Gods Honour, and the good of thoſe ſoules depend, if ſo important a determination for Religion, be altogether truſted in their hands; ſpecially having no certaine Rule to make it by, as we ſhall ſee ſtraight 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, unleſſe 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 leaſt matter can be produced, that any particular Church in thoſe Dayes did ordaine by their owne authority? And much leſſe then, would they have medled 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 Commandement 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, p. 279and ſo determined, for the honour of God, and the good of every Chriſtian ſoule; namely, a new proportion of Continuance and Frequencie for the chiefe Time to Religion, and a new Day for it. Yet we ſhewed 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 cleare, that the Particular Churches did not make thoſe Determinations to themſelves, neither had they authority ſo to doe. 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 Commandement, for the Continuance of a whole Day, and the Frequencie of one in ſeven: And by vertue of this, and other intimations in the New Teſtament, for the Lords-day, the firſt Day of the Weeke, to be the particular Day.

And ſo we have, as we are perſwaded,XLVI. Arg. 12. All men want wiſdome to determine it. ſufficiently and clearely refuted the ſuppoſed authority of the Church, and of all men [about the Determination of this chiefe ſolemne Time, neceſſary and ſufficient for the chiefe 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 generall Argument, againſt any mans, or number of mens determinations of it, even the Churches, whether in times of the old Patriarks before Moſes, or the Chriſtian Church of the New Teſtament; and that is in point of Wiſdome: As having no Rule, whereby poſſibly to guide themſelves ſteadily in the making of this determination of the chiefe Time neceſſary and ſufficient. For, whatſoever we take into conſideration, that may ſeem to make towards a Rule; will and doth render it more perplexe; Either calling for ſo much, as men will never be willing to grant neceſſary; or leaving them altogether uncertaine, whether that they would pitch upon, were ſufficient, both in reference to the whole proportion of the chiefe Time; as alſo the diſtribution of that proportion, whatever it be, between the Continuance and Frequencie, ſave only in caſe they would pitch upon a whole Dayes continuance, to which Nature inclines very much, as we have intimated before, and muſt againe further urge.) Thus we reaſon:

[If there be in Men no ſufficiencie of wiſdome to make this Determination p. 280of the neceſſary ſufficient chiefe ſolemne Time for Religion to themſelves and others; Then this Determination belongs not to Men. But there is in Men no ſufficiencie of wiſdome 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 peoples ſoules, to leave ſuch a matter as this is ſo important to Religion, to be determined by ſuch as have not a ſufficiencie of wiſedome 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 chiefe ſolemne Time for Religion, or the diſtribution of that proportion between the Continuance and Frequencie, (except only for a whole Dayes continuance, which is refuſed) Then they can have no ſufficiencie of wiſdome 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, &c. Ergo, Men can have no ſufficiencie of wiſedome to make this Determination.] The Conſequence againe is evident enough. For what is wiſedome, but to doe 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 expreſt) the Continuance of a whole Day is refuſed, and ſo refuſed by all the Adverſaries, as that this is the maine and originall quarrell 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 wiſedome: 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, unleſſe God himſelfe did utterly reject it: And they that ſay He hath, have then (we ſay) no rule of wiſedome to goe 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 generall expreſſions of Scripture: We ſay, ſome generall expreſſions of Scripture; For all the particular determinations there p. 281mentioned, are expreſly diſputed againſt by the Adverſaries, as no neceſſary obligations or rules to Chriſtians. Again, for particular rules, totall or partiall, 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 Soule 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 imployed: whoſe nature will appeare to be generally (except in one caſe or two) indefinite. 4. The nature of the ſecondary Subject, and uſuall and certaine 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 Frequencie, all his life long. The nature of which buſineſſes will appeare to be, 1. Sutable to corrupted Nature. 2. Exceeding various, numerous, and uncertaine; 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 foure Conſiderations were all the rules, that Adam, or any of the old Patriarks could have to look to, toward the making of this Determination of the neceſſary and ſufficient chiefe 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 gratifie our Diſputers, who ſeem often to fancy, as though the Proportion the Jewes 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 gratifie them) take this alſo into conſideration. And ſo with the beſt skill we have, p. 282examine and ſet before our Readers all theſe five, ſeverally and diſtinctly, according both to the Law and Light of Nature, and generall 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 himſelfe.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 Solemne Time, and ſo this chiefe Time, and all Worſhip tendred in it, is to be obſerved. Now we ſay, The Nature of GOD, (whether we heare Scripture ſpeak, er even Naturall 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 it ſelfe conſidered? The anſwer can be no other then, All Time is neceſſary. Or againe, If you ask, What Time is ſufficient for the Honour of GOD? The anſwer will ſtill be, Leſſe then all Time cannot be ſufficient. [Who can declare the mighty acts of the Lord? who can ſhew 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, bleſſe Him, as for a ſingular favour, for making known to them His holy Sabbaths, (the chiefe ſolemne Time of praiſing Him) v. 16. Here then is nothing to proportion out only a parcell 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 imploy ſome Time upon worldly buſineſſes, by Gods allowance? For we are far enough from denying that. But whether the majeſty, glory and honour of the eternall God, the Lord of us and all our Time, in and by it ſelfe conſidered, can afford to ſpare any Time from His attendance? and ſpecially which way it can be poſſible, that the thoughts of His incomprehenſible Excellencie and Glory, ſhould direct us to ſhare Time between His immediate ſervice, and worldly matters? The holy Angels in heaven keep an eternall Sabbath, without intermiſſion, interruption or end. We ſhall doe ſo too hereafter with them, if we rightly and faithfully ſerve Him upon earth. And without all controverſie, ſuch an p. 283eternall 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 leſſe then all, to be in His acceptation ſufficient. His will then we muſt ſeek further after, in ſome of the other Conſiderations. For here we are undeniably at a loſſe; 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 Soule. of the nature of the Soule, the prime ſubject of Worſhip, and ſecondary end of all Religious Time; for whoſe benefit properly it is to be imployed. And this, we ſay, both Scripture chiefly, and Nature alſo, (at leaſt not reaſonably contradicting) proclaime to be infinite in duration, appointed to an Eternity of happineſſe, or miſery: and its neceſſities to ſecure this happineſſe, 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 Soule hath in this life? And if the inevitable neceſſities of Nature for eating, drinking, and ſleeping, &c. be pleaded: yet we doubt not, whether the Soule would not, or ſhould not, grudge even at theſe, as endangering to hinder that which is of more importance than meat, or drinke, or ſleepe, or even than the bodily life and ſubſiſtence it ſelfe. Not that we imagine or dreame, 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 forbeare all meat and drinke for a ſpace, and ſo to watch even whole nights, for the good of Soules, our own ſpecially, but alſo even of others: As likewiſe, that when a Soule growes extraordinarily ſollicitous of its own ſalvation, (and ſometimes even of others) It cannot afford to eat or drinke, it cannot ſleep, ready ſometimes even to ſtarve it ſelfe, or kill it ſelfe with over-watching; but that it is forced up doe otherwiſe p. 284even by Gods command, urged upon them by friends, and the feare of prejudicing their very ſalvation, if they ſhould be cauſes of their own death. And moreover, it is uſuall with many Chriſtians to think much and repine at all the Time, wherein they are not ſpiritually imployed for their ſoules; even though they cannot deny, but God hath not only allowed, but even commanded them to imploy houres, and dayes, 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 ſoules, 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 ſence 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 deale of Time to learne them; 2. And how forgetfull 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. Withall the faintneſſe of their godly affection; 4. And the ſtrength of their corruptions; which require ſtill much and often Time to ſtrengthen the one, and combate, and mortifie the other; 5. And finally, their being aſſaulted daily and hourely 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 regaine that peace and comfort when it is gone or waſted; and to enjoy ſpirituall refreſhings in the boſome of Gods love. All this together cannot but make a ſoul think no meaſure of Time, leſſe then all, neceſſary and ſufficient, for attendance upon Him, whom it is bound to love with its whole ſelf, mind, heart, ſtrength: and ſo to worke upon it ſelf, 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 thankfulneſſe for His love: and to enjoy His love, and its own happineſſe 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 p. 285immediate care of their ſoules in His immediate ſervice, that muſt diſcharge any proportion at all from being neceſſary to the ſoules good; See Sect. 71.and ſo His promiſe of bleſſing upon ſome proportions of Time orderly obſerved for the chiefe Time (together with other Times to be redeemed as they can) that makes any proportion to be ſufficient for the chiefe 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 chiefe Time we are diſcourſing about, is to be imployed. And they are all (except the Sacraments) apparantly 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 Baptiſme, is, in it ſelf, ſoon diſpatched; and in the nature of it, not to be reiterated to the ſame perſon. And the Lords Supper alſo is ſoon diſpatcht, by each particular Communicant. But then it (as well as any of the other duties of Prayer, Preaching, Reading the Word, Praiſes, Singing, Meditations, Conferences, Catechiſings,) is capable of a Daily Frequency. And all thoſe may be reiterated oftner, even every new minute, after an interruption; and that every Day of ones life. We meane, 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 houres, 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 halfe a quarter of an houre, or a minute (as Peters 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 withall 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 mercifull to me a ſinner.] And ſo a word or p. 286two 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 beneficiall to ſoules, 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 leſſe, and ſo much Frequency and no ſeldomer.] Neither can we run back to the conſiderations of Gods honour, or the ſoules good, to meaſure theſe by. For they have already refuſed any abſolute direction. But ſtill ſome other thing muſt eſtimate, or helpe to eſtimate the due proportions of Time for the ſeveralls of theſe. And againe, only the will of God, ſome other way declared, is that which muſt teach us to conclude, that for the chiefe Time to be imployed 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 expreſſe will of God; which yet we are to proceed in the ſearch of, as being hitherto never a whit neerer the finding of it, then 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 buſineſſe, The body being the ſecondary ſubject of religious Worſhip, joyning with the ſoule in ſome ſort in all ſolemne Worſhip, of which we now diſcourſe. And yet it, and ſpecially worldly buſineſſes are certaine 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 mens Time, both for Continuance and Frequency.] But here alſo, we are not like to find any better helpe toward the dividing of our Times betweene God and the World, the ſoule and the body, then before; and that in the three regards forenoted. 1. The buſineſſes of the body, and of the World, doe greatly border upon corrupted Nature; and ſo to looke at them chiefely 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 p. 287too largely, and too ſlender pittances left for God and the ſoul: As is more then apparant in many, who, though their conſciences cannot deny the fourth Commandement to concerne them and theirs, even for a whole Day in a weeke; yet doe not, nor cannot afford God and their ſoules halfe the Day, becauſe their minds are ſo ſet upon pampering their bellies, and giving way to their lazineſſe, by lying longer in bed that morning then all the weeke beſides, and going ſooner to bed that night then any other, beſides ſleeping, ſometimes in the very Day time (not to ſay, in the very Church, and at the ſolemne ſervice of God;) alſo finding ſundry pretended neceſſities, of this, or that worldly buſineſſe for themſelves and theirs: And much more is this evident in thoſe, who have learned the confidence to deny the Commandement 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 ſutableneſſe betweene their bodily or worldly occaſions, and their carnall corruptions, that they make a ſhift to ſhuffle God and their ſoules off with a very leane and thinne allowance of Time, ſufficient indeed for nothing, but to render them the more inexcuſable, that making ſhew of acknowledging a ſufficient Time to be neceſſary to Religion, they allot ſuch a miſerable inſufficient parcell to it. And there is no reaſon to expect it will be any better ordered, while mens corrupted nature hath no better counſellours, then the body and worldly occaſions, (under the name of neceſſities) to helpe 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 uncertaine, running round throughout the whole yeere (as is ſaid of a husband-mans worke, that it is never done; and ſo it is with all worldly buſineſſes in one regard or other) and capable alſo of ingroſſing the whole of every day; which is moſt apparant in ſervants, and thoſe that ſpend their Times chiefly 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 Dayes of a yeere, or of a monethmonth or weeke, or ſo many houres of a weeke, or Day; becauſe I ſhall have nothing to doe about worldly affaires, but may be free to attend on God.] We ſay, this can never be ſaid in reference to p. 288all mankind, (of whom our diſpute now is) and ſo we ſhould have moſt wild determinations, if men take their aimes, only, or chiefly from the conſiderations of bodily and worldly buſineſſes, in the proportioning a neceſſary and ſufficient chiefe Time for God and the ſoule. 3. For alſo, at the beſt, the bodily and worldly occaſions are but ſecondary and inferiour matters, farre beneath in worth, not only the Honour of God but the good of ſoules. And it cannot be fit, or agreable to wiſdome, that inferiour matters ſhould give a Rule to ſuperiour; or be a meaſure to them, that is, for the maine and chiefe part of our Time. It is true indeed, That Gods gracious indulgence to mans bodily life, and outward comforts, doth allow interruptions in ſome reſerved caſes from His ſolemneſt ſervices, and ſo from His owne moſt ſolemne determined Times, as we have often ſaid. But without ſuch indulgence printed in Nature, or expreſt in His Word, no conſcience might, no good conſcience would dare ſo to interrupt His Times and ſervices. Much leſſe then, without His indulgence, may any conſcience conclude, and determine, [That ſuch bodily and worldly buſineſſe as fals within the compaſſe of every mans calling, may be allowed to be the divider, and the diſtributer of the chiefe Time of all men, and ſo God and the ſoules of men have no other allowance for the chiefe Time to Religion, then what thoſe worldly conſiderations ſhall allot.] This thought about Gods indulgence is a moſt weighty and moſt neceſſary conſideration in this diſpute. But it doth not ſeeme 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 paines to view thoſe diſcourſes, ſhall not be able to miſſe it, or paſſe it ſleightly over: But we muſt firſt make up this Argument, and another in the meane Time. We ſay then, that by all this diſcourſe, of the Nature of God, the Nature of the Soule, the Nature of the Duties of Worſhip, the Nature of the Body, and worldly occaſions: Take any of them ſingle and apart, or joyne any of them or all of them together in the conſultation; and we are as farre as can be from any gueſſe how to proportion the Time, betweene Religion and other matters; except that we ought undoubtedly to ſay; (if we have nothing but theſe to direct us) [That to Gods honour, and the ſouls benefit, the farre greater proportion of Time is neceſſary, and that it p. 289cannot be ſufficient to let the world poſſeſſe the largeſt ſhare.] And if this be true; (as we cannot ſee how it can poſſibly be denyed, and we ſhall yet further confirme it in a following argument;) our Adverſaries have made a goodly purchſſe, by diſputing the abrogation of the fourth Commandement for one Day in ſeven: In as much as in ſtead of their pretended Chriſtian liberty not to be tyed to ſuch a proportion; all other rules call for twiſe, thriſe, as much; and rather for ſix Dayes of ſeven, and leave but one for worldly buſineſſes. And if they ſhall object,Excep that mens bodily lives could not be preſerved with ſo little a proportion for worldly buſineſſes and trades. We Anſwer (ſet aſide the Wiſdome of God,Sol. and His allowance of ſix Dayes Worke, in the fourth Commandement) it is not poſſible for any man living, or any number of men, to aſſigne 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 Apparell, 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 deale leſſe 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 ſinnes, becauſe ſpecially we beleeve God to have allowed ſix Dayes in a Week, mainly for worldly buſineſſe according to the fourth Commandement: Yet we ſay ſtill, that if this allowance were not, we ſee not any warrant, to imploy 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 ſoules. And ſo ſtill we are altogether at a leſſe for a rule of wiſdome, how to determine, our neceſſary and ſufficient chiefe Solemne Time for Religion. And therefore this determination could not be, nor was ever left to man, to Adam, or the Partriarkes before Moſes (Much loſſe 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 Commandement. But remained ever in Gods 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 moodes, when they ſay, The Church muſt not offend in exceſſe p. 290or defect; not render the yoke of Chriſtians too heavy by appointing too much, nor ſlight, or ſeeme to ſlight the ſervice of God, and render it contemptible by appointing too little; They ſeeme to fancy, that the proportion of one Day of ſeven. (though by no meanes 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 dayes more rarely appointed, they count a ſufficient Time for Religion, equall, if not ſuperiour to the Time that God had from the Jewes 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 onelyonly ſhew ſomewhat the inſufficiency and abſurdity of this pretence.

LIII. This is proved abſurd.We ſay then 1. That for other Holy dayes, beſides the weekely Solemne day, they come not properly into this diſpute, about the ordinary chiefe Time for Religion. They are 1. Extraordinary Dayes, of which kind the Jewes alſo had ſome of Gods appointing, and ſome of their own, more then 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 chiefe ſolemne Time neceſſary and ſufficient for all Chriſtians. Likewiſe 4. No Church Reformed, that hath retained Holy dayes, hath ſpoken fully and clearely about the Continuance of them, and how neceſſarily they are to be obſerved to Religion, and imployed wholly in Religious duties or not. And ſo they come not properly into this diſpute about the neceſſary chiefe Time for Religion.

2. Leaving theſe out, and conſidering the weekely ſolemne proportion, it was of old determined to the Jewes in the fourth Commandement: One whole Day of ſeven. Both which (as well as the particular ſeventh Day, the Saturday Sabbath, which they pin to the Commandement: But we ſhal ſhew their errour 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 p. 291the ſuppoſition of Gods making theſe void, they can finde out a rule for the Chriſtian Church to make a determination of the chiefe 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 Chriſts Time to this Day, obſerved and perpetuated among all Chriſtians, by all confeſſion. Some kept (as is ſaid) more Dayes, 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 Gods determination of the fourth Commandement ſtill in force. They ſay, only by the Churches 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 chuſe 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 wiſedome 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 expreſly to croſſe the Wiſdom of god? LV. 1. It is croſſe 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 typicall, or for what ever other reaſon can be imagined or ſurmiſed;) The Church having power and authority to chuſe another number, there being ſtill to be a revolution of Dayes for Religion, What could be more abſurd, then to chuſe again this rejected diſliked number?

2.LVI. 2. Th… particular ſeventh Day, may as well be reaſſumed. What can be alledged for the reaſſuming of the number of one Day in ſeven, and rejecting the particular ſeventh Day, if they were both alike Ceremoniall and Typicall, & ſo abrogated by Chriſts Death? Or may not the particular Day be reaſſumed again, or any of other Iewiſh 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 levell the Judaicall dayes; How can it be retained, without contradicting p. 292thoſe Texts? Or may not all the reſt of the weak and beggerly elements and rudiments of the world be reaſſumed and maintained as well as this? If this be one of them? Is this the liberty Chriſts death hath purchaſed, to give His Church leave to continue thoſe Ordinances (any one of them) for ſo many hundred yeeres, which He hath diſanulled? and to continue them to the ſame purpoſe for which they were of old, (as this to be the number for the chiefe Time neceſſary and ſufficient for all Chriſtians) when they had choice enough beſides? To bind Chriſtians to that number again, by vertue of their Authority left them, to ſettle the waight of the Law of Nature, and continuing Morality of the fourth Commandement for a neceſſary and ſufficient Time, when God and Chriſt had ſet them looſe and free from it? For our parts, we can thinke no otherwiſe, but that this number is unlawfull to be obſerved for the chiefe Time, if God have diſanulled 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 vertue of the fourth Commandement, and not of any new determination of the Church at any time; and ſo we believe our ſelves, 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 ſcandall 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 ſcandall to us, (whom our Adverſaries alſo, in courteſie, nick-name Sabbatarians) miſleading us into ſuperſtition, if we be miſ-led, as they ſay we are, for urging the obſervation of this number, (and of the whole Day withall, as a Sabbath) by vertue of the fourth Commandement ſtill in force; and ſo as neceſſary to Religion by Gods command: Which neither the Saturday-Sabbatarians, nor we much leſſe, could ever have dreamed of, or have pretended any thing for, no more then for the Jewiſh new moones, or other feſtivals, if the number had been altered to one Day of ſixe, or of eight. How eaſily had this great and multiplied ſcandall been prevented? and how neceſſarily, upon the foregoing Reaſons ſpecially? Whereas grant the fourth Commandement perpetuall 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; p. 293and God hath done it in His Word, as we ſhall ſhew: though ſtill ſome will ſtumble at moſt plaine 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 ſixe,LVIII. 4. It argues want of zeale in the Church not to determine ſo much or one Day of five, and determine that number in a Revolution for the chiefe ſolemne Time: Where hath been the …eale of the Chriſtian Church all this while, ever ſince our Saviours time, that they have never pitcht upon ſuch a determination, as might have been remarkably advantagious in a yeere, and much more in a life, for the good of Soules, and ſo for the honour of God? Which had alſo taken away and prevented quite all the forementioned inconveniencies. Could never any Generall Councell, or Nationall Church bethinke 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 Jewes, LIX. 5. It is alſo ſcandalous to the Jewes.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 ſcandall to the Jewes, 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. 10.32.1 Cor 10:32 yet it falls heavy upon thoſe who unneceſſarily ſcandalize even the Jewes, 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 Commandement, and are both now together abrogated, as are all the words of the fourth Commandement; 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 Jewes ſake, yet it ought to have ceaſed long ſince. The old particular Day was retained a while, at leaſt in publike, among the Jewes; and ſo were the forbearance of things ſtrangled, and blood, (even ordained ſo) and Circumciſion it ſelfe, and Sacrifices were practiſed a while; But after a while, all left; and by p. 294Divines 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 apparant a new particular Day was, even in full oppoſition to Judaiſme; as upon this ground the Councell 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 meerly Judaicall, 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 Jewes, LX. 6. The old number can give no direction to the Church.if it be now made voyd, can afford the Chriſtian Church no direction at all towards the ſetling of a new number.] For as much as, 1. there is no Argument ſufficient to convince or ſatisfie a Conſcience, whether that number was rejected by God, as too often a revolution, or too ſeldome. Themſelves, in their Diſputes, diſcourſe ambiguouſly of it, and with their argumentations contradict themſelves, (as it is uſuall for Errours to doe.) 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 libertie, 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, then the Jewes were, and freed from many other burdenſome Ceremonies) where then is our Chriſtian liberty? Are we not, in the particular, in more ſtraights then the Jewes? And by the Churches tying us againe (as they ſay it hath) to the number of one in ſeven. Is not our Chriſtian libertie infringed, it being libertie not to be tyed to that number? Unleſſe they will ſay, It is libertie not to be tyed by Gods expreſſe commandement of that number, and yet libertie ſtill to be tyed by the Churches command, who hath authoritie from God to determine the Moralitie of the fourth Commandement, 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 libertie, not to be tyed to this number, then we ought not to be tyed to a more frequent number, nor yet to the ſame number againe, 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 burthen the p. 295Readers with the ſame Notions againe. 2. But ſuppoſe it were clearly certaine, on which hand the ſcale ſhould now weigh, to a number more frequent, upon the reaſon of our greater obligation to God, and greater meanes of grace to improve the Times to better purpoſe then they, (which our diſputers alſo diſcourſe by fits) or to a number leſſe frequent, upon the reaſon of Chriſtian Liberty: Yet now is there no rule to ſatisfie a doubting conſcience, or convince a diſputer, (though no wrangler) how neer to the number of one in ſeven, the number ſhould be kept and ſetled. For if it be one of three, or foure: Or even three, or foure, 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 farre from appearing ſufficient to a zealous or doubtfull 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, then again, on the other ſide, it will be more impoſsible to prove it neceſſary to an unwilling or worldly mind. Either way, both wayes, we are all altogether upon uncertainties; and ſo this old number of one Day in ſeven, determined to the Iewes, can ſtand us in no ſtead at all, toward the determination of the number for the chiefe Time now.