this latter not the former must be his meaning because it is nothing to the purpose which I will not impute to so learned a man for what is not so revealed is not revealed at all seeing it is unintelligible by defect of objective light now to say that Christ's Laws must be thus revealed is to say that they must be promulgated some way or other which was never questioned by any and maketh nothing for his design viz. that Christs Laws must be so revealed as that the disputes about them shall be taken away Yea he cannot mean this for the change of any Circumstance of an old Law must at least be thus revealed else it is not revealed at all and yet he requireth another sort of Revelation of new Laws as appeareth from what hath been said § 12. 2. If this Assertion thus explained were true there should remain no more Controversie among serious and learned men about any of the Laws of Christ for such have their senses exercised in these things Wherefore they may if we believe this Author know such to be Christs Laws and therefore cannot be in an Errour about them But how absurd this is sad Experience maketh too evident Is it not a Controversie whether Christ hath appointed seven or but two Sacramentst whether he hath commanded us to pray to Saints departed whether Excommunication be by his Law c. We must then either say that Christ hath made no Law in these things or that men cannot mistake in them but that they who oppose the truth herein do oppose that which they know to be Christ's Law or that Christ hath made and revealed a Law about these things but these men cannot see it which is contrary to the Author's Assertion 3. Is it not enough to bind the Conscience of any who soberly seek to know what is the good and perfect and acceptable will of God that the Lord in his word hath given some intimation from which we may gather that such a thing is his will Sure seeing it is his will that bindeth the Conscience whatever way we come to the knowledge of this will we are obliged by it to our duty Now we may be able in some cases to deduce from Scripture such a thing to be the will of God though it be not set down in such evident terms as are here mentioned as is clear to any who do consider 4. There are many points of Truth or many Credenda in the Scripture which want such an Evidence of Revelation as is here required which yet we are to believe as the truths of God for it is clear that the Lord hath taught us many things in the Bible as it were on the bye and left them to be gathered from Scripture Assertions yea many times Truths are couched in Duties commanded as Commands also are comprehended in Assertions and Promises Now if this clearness of terms in the Revelation of the Credenda of Religion be not necessary to bind the Conscience to believe how is it imaginable that it should be necessary in the Revelation of the Agenda to bind the Will to act seeing the Lord doth as peremptorily require us to believe what he hath said as to do what he hath commanded 5. For the exception that he maketh of the changing some Circumstances of old Laws I see not on what Foundation of reason the difference between these and new Laws can stand but that this shift serveth his purpose For to take his own instance supposing a standing Law for a Sabbath and that the seventh day must be kept This Circumstance as he is pleas'd to call it that not the seventh but the first day be kept is really a new law yea there are here two new laws one abrogating what was before and making it no duty to keep the seventh day another establishing a new which was not before and making it a duty to keep the first day Now if this may be thought no obliging law of Christ without that evidence of revelation which he talks of why may not another thing that was not such before If we are to look to Apostolick practice as ground sufficient why we should think it Christs will that we should keep the first day of the week to the Lord which was not done before why should we not think the same ground sufficient why Ministers should rule the Church by a parity of Authority Yea reason would say that there is need of more clearness in the revelation of Christ's will for altering a standing law in such of it's circumstances as doth annul one duty and establish another than for setling that as duty which is altogether new seeing in the former we must both know the will of God in abrogating and establishing in the later we are to know only that he will stablish such a thing § 13. In his examination of what maketh an unalterable Divine right I agree to most that he teacheth only his Postulatum p. 14. one which he buildeth all his assertions needeth to be a little cleared He asserteth that nothing can be founded on Divine Right nor bind Believers as a positive Law but what may be certainly known to have come from God with an intention to bind Believers to the Worlds end Where I only take notice that though Plerophory in that case be very desirable yet such certainty is not necessary to our obligation But so much knowledge of the will of God as may satisfie the Conscience by Jnclining it to the one hand and not leaving it absolutely in suspence If this be not sufficient we shall take off all obligation of Gods positive laws from most men for few have plerophorie in most things I agree with him that a divine right is built on the law of nature and on the immutable positive laws of God also that these are three good marks of the immutability of divine positive laws which he bringeth viz. when the reason of the law remains when God hath declared such a law never to be changed when it conduceth to the being of a Society that he would have to continue Only I cannot see how these espeeially the former two marks do consist with the mutability of that Church government in these things we controvert about which the Apostles practised no doubt as being Christs will and law seeing there is the same reason for parity now that then was and Christ hath not said that he will have it altered in after ages § 14. Page 23. He comes to examine some pretences as he is pleased to call them for a divine right And first he laboureth to enervate the argument for the divine right of Church-Government taken from Apostolical practice of which he promiseth to say more after but what he here saith we shall examine I yield to him that all Scripture examples do not bind neither doth any example bind as an example also that the rule whereby we know what examples do bind is not immediately
had commanded to the Jews or such as they without his command did take up The former he doth not alledg that the Apostles followed the Jews in The latter he asserteth and we deny it and shall anon hear what he bringeth for his Assertion But for further clearing this and the whole matter I lay down a fourth consideration viz. to make it out that the Apostles did imitate the Jews there are two things required 1. To shew the co-incidency of their practice 2. To shew that this co-incidency did proceed from a design of conformity viz. that the Apostles were determined in such things by the Jewish Example for the former without the other is no imitation because in imitation the former practice must have some influence on that which followeth such as the exemplary cause hath on the exemplatum Now if the Apostles did in some of these the same things with the Jewish Church only accidentally or upon other motives and did not as Mr. Stilling phraseth it copy out the Jewish way of Government 't is no imitating of them Sect. 4. From what hath been said it will be easie to maintain against Mr. Stilling large Discourse that the Apostles did not in the Government of the Church imitate the Jewish Synagogue as their Pattern I shall touch such things in his Discourse as seem to prove it And 1. I take notice of that which was occasionally touched before p. 240 viz. That Christ delighted to take up the received practices among the Jews as the Postcoenium he turned to the Lords Supper Baptism of Proselytes imitated to Christian Baptism casting out of the Synagogue to Excommunication And this he saith he did with Rites not which were originally founded on Moses's Law but which were brought in by a confederate Discipline among themselves This saith he hath been abundantly manifested by many learned men of which he cited some in his Margin I confess many learned Men especially such as have spent their pains in Critical Learning have done but bad service to Christ and his institutions while to serve their Phoenomena and make their critical Conjectures the more plausible they have made Mens devices like Maezentius his bed to curtail or stretch out Christs Institutions by them at their pleasure But the Authority of such Men though never so learned shall not perswade me what their Reasons may do I say not till I hear and consider them to think that Christ had such delight in Mens inventions in the Worship of God as to make them the Pattern of his Gospel-institutions and that rather than the Ceremonies which of old were of divine Authority shall we think that he who condemneth Mens Doctrines in Gods Worship as vain Mal. 15. 9. and especially in that Chapter condemneth a Ceremony brought in by confederate Discipline which in it self was as harmless as any of these mentioned viz. often Washing shall we think I say that he had such pleasure in these things sure he cannot be so unlike himself Neither I am sure can the Assertors of this Paradox shew any such difference between that Ceremony and these here instanced as that Christ should hate the one and delight in the other For that often alledged that the Pharisees placed much Religion in their often Washings besides that the thing simply not their opinion is condemned in the place cited it cannot be made out that they placed more Religion in this than they did in their Postcoenium washing of Proselytes c. For further Answer to this Assertion of our Authors I add that supposing Christ did make his Institutions to consist of some material acts like to these of the Jewish uncommanded observations for this is the furthest that the Authors consideration can pretend to prove it doth not follow that he approved of these inventions neither that we may mould the affairs of the Church by our Reason and skill without Scripture and that for these Reasons 1. From Christs Wisdom 2. From his Authority which did warrant him to do such things and doth not make it lawful for the Church now to do them 1. I say from his Wisdom he is an able and competent Judg of what is suted to Gospel-worship and what not and therefore of these unwarranted Observations in Use among the Jews he could chuse what was fittest for his designs the things being indifferent in themselves and appoint them in his Church we cannot so well judg of the fitness of a thing to his design in the Gospel-model of affairs and therefore must not take such liberty in doing what Man hath done without a special institution of Christ. Moreover he knew well how in the depth of his Wisdom to make such a choice in his institutions serve unto two great ends viz. the gaining of the Jews by making as little diffrrence between the old way to which they were wedded and the new Gospel-way as could be and the adorning of his Gospel-service with most fit and excellent Ceremonies this cannot be pretended for devices of Men in Gods Worship whether found out by themselves or wherein they imitate others 2. For his Authority however these Observations being uncommanded were on that account unlawful to the Jews yet the things materially considered being indifferent and Christ having absolute Authority to institute particulars in his Church he might well chuse these and seal them with his Authority and so make them both lawful and duty to us this no Man can do they must have his Command for Institution and not make them by their own authority Wherefore Christ taking the Jewish Customs for Patterns to his Institutions if he did so maketh nothing for Men's setting up their institutions in the Church or for the indifferency of things belonging peculiarly to the Church Sect. 5. That which he saith ibid maketh little to his purpose viz. That even when God did determine the positives of Worship he left the Morals to the wisdom and discretion of his People which he instanceth in building and ruling Synagogues Ans. this is true of such things as are of common concernment to Religion and other Actions we also allow such parts of Church-Government to be managed by Christian Prudence his instance proveth no more for we permit also the building of Churches to prudence But the question is about things proper to the Church as it is a Religious Society these things we deny to have been left to prudence among the Jews or to be now so left among Christians I cannot yield to what he seemeth to aim at when he saith that though the reason of erecting Synagogues was builded on a command viz. Of having holy Convocations yet they were not built for a long time after they came to the Land I cannot think that the building of Synagogues was indifferent though the place and manner was for the same command that requireth holy Convocations requireth that there be a place fit for them If they were at first long of building it was either
ut Rector in Academia reliquis Collegis this he thinketh was lawful and yet setteth this note upon that practice in the same Sect. Qua de re Hieronymi tum alibi tum in Epist. ad Evagr. in Commentar Epist. ad Tit. c. 10. Narratio sententia nobis probatur dicentis totum hoc magis ex consuetudine quam ex dominicae dispositionis veritate profectum esse Which is as much as to say He thought it rather somewhat tolerable through necessity than allowable Which small glance at the tolerableness of a Precedency in the Church if it may pass for so much was not well taken by other Worthy Divines as appeareth by Zanchius's own observations on this his Confession which Mr. Stilling taketh notice of but passeth what might make against him for Magnus quidem vir as Zant. calleth him who was well satisfied with the rest of his Confession excepteth this which he had said of the Arch-Bishops and Hierarchie and that not only as what did dispease himself but was unsutable to the harmony of confessions that the Protestant Churches were then drawing up as appeareth by a part of an Epistle of that Magnus vir to Zan. which he inserteth to the Preface to his Observations So that it seems this was generally disliked by Protestant Divines contrary to what Mr. Stilling would make us believe viz. That all the Protestant Churches thought the form of Government indifferent All which being laid together let any then judg what great advantage Mr. Stilling's cause hath received from this Testimony of Zanchie Especially if we consider with what Weapon Zan. defendeth this his Opinion viz. That it was generally practised by the Ancient Church and he would not take upon him to disallow them as may be seen in his Observations on Chap. 25. of his Confessions We see he bringeth no better Warrant than the practice of Men who might and did in many things err But Mr. Stilling telleth us of the same Opinion of Zan. de 4to praec loc 4. qu. 2. p. 943 c. and indeed he teacheth the same thing but with some advantage to our design for after he had made the ordinary Officers to be of three sorts viz. Pastors and Doctors and Ruling-Elders whose Office he proveth from Scripture and asserteth as the Opinion of the Reformed Divines generally and Deacons and had proved at length p. 950 951 952. Presbyters and Bishops to be the same in Scripture He sheweth p. 952 953. That in after-Ages one of the Presbyters was set over the rest but addeth to qualifie it p. 953. Idcirco damnari haec piae vetustatis ordinatio consuetudo non potest modo plus sibi authoritatis non usurpet Episcopus quà habent reliqui Ministri ut recte monet Hieronymus Here he overturneth all Mr. Stilling's design for such a Bishop is but a meer President He thinks he hath gain'd another Testimony from M. Bucer whom Zan. in those his observations citeth but Mr. Stilling hath not told us wherein Bucer speaketh to his purpose wherefore take this account of Bucer's Opinion out of Zanch. He citeth two large Testimonies of Bucer the first is out of his Commentary on the Ephes. where he speaketh of seven kinds of Teaching viz. By Reading Interpretation Instruction Doctrina Exhortation Catechisms Disputing private Admonition from which he saith That in the Ancient Church they brought in seven kinds of Teachers Now what is this to the Parity or imparity of Ministers He speaketh nothing here of setting a Lord-Bishop over his Brethren as a thing lawfully practised in the ancient Church Yea if we consider his Discourse well we shall find that these were not divers Offices but the work of the Pastors divided among more where there were many Officers in one Church yet so as all might exercise all these Duties and so here is no multiplication of Offices beyond Christ's Institution Though I do not deny that this distributing of the work of Ministers did afterwards begin to be looked upon as making several orders of Officers but this he doth not approve of The second Testimony of Bucer is out of his de Discipl Clerical The sum of which is this for the words are too long to be transcribed That in the Ancient Church they set up a Bishop among the Presbyters Vt Consul inter Senatores this is devolving their Power into his hands which Mr. Still pleadeth for That these Bishops and Presbyters did meet when occasion required in Synods that one was over the Synod to convocate and moderate it this is not to have Jurisdiction over the rest who was called Metropolitan from the chief City where he used to reside then over the Metropolitans were set up Patriarchs but behold how careful he is to protest against imparity as to Jurisdiction of whom he saith His tamen Primatibus Episcopis nihil omnino juris erat in alios Episcopos aliasve Ecclesias ultra quod dixi cuique Metropolitae in Ecclesias atque Episcopos suae provinciae Which we took notice before was to convocate and moderate the Synod At last he sheweth how among these Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome was set up as Chief and then how all good Order went to ruine Now let this Testimony be considered and we shall hope for more advantage by it than Mr. Stilling could expect From it we draw these two Conclusions 1. That Bucer looked upon setting up a Precedent over Presbyters as the greatest length that the Primitive Church did or could go towards the making of imparity among Ministers 2. That even this their practice though not unlawful in it self yet is so inconvenient that it was the Method and Mean that Antichrist got into his Chair by Sect. 5. He cometh next to the French Divines and beginneth with Fregevile whose Testimony we think not worth the Answering seeing as Mr. Still confesseth he was Episcopal His opinion did not suit well with the principles of that Church he lived in as we shall see after The next is Blondel that learned writer for Presbyters as he is called whose words cited by Mr. Still are not at all to the purpose as any may see at first view seeing he saith no more but that it is in the Churches Power to make a perpetual Precedent or not For Bochartus his opinion that neither Presbyterialis nor Episcopalis ordo is juris divini if he mean the difference between them in jurisdiction and not only in Precedency I see not how it can be defended and not having his Book I cannot determine how consistent it is with his own principles For Amiraldus whom he bringeth next his design of Union with the Lutherans I believe did either stretch his opinion or made him stretch his affections to an excess of condescendency which cannot be excused but from his good Intention Sect. 6. Our Author cometh next to those who look on Parity as the Primitive Form and yet allow Episcopacy as a very Lawful and usefull