but which particular way or form it must be is wholly left to the prudence of those in whose Power and Trust it is to see the Peace of the Church secured on lasting Foundations If this be a fit way of healing Church-rents then those Churches are in the best way to peace who cast away the Bible and will not look there what God hath commanded because some may say he hath commanded this and others he hath commanded that and so refer all controversies to be determined by men as supposing nothing to be determined by God And indeed this is the basis that the peace of the Popish Church standeth upon and I believe no Jesuit would have given another advice than this toward the fetling of our divided condition What Must we say that neither way is commanded of God whether it be so or not when we can prove from Scripture that this is Christ's Institution that not but a device and usurpation of men must we yield this our ground and leave the whole matter to men's wills as being the readiest way to peace If this be his cure for Church-Divisions I believe they who take the word of God for their rule especially in Church-matters will think it worse than the Disease Every way to peace is not a good way otherwise there were no duty at any time to contend for the truth once delivered to the Saints Jude 3. § 10. I do not dissent from the learned Author in his Determinations about the Nature of Right and Divine Right but must examine some of the Principles from which he will have a Divine Right to be inferred Wherefore as to the rest of the first Chapter I first take notice that what he largely discourseth from p. 6. to p. 11. concerning the lawfulness of that which is not forbidden by God however it may be granted sano sensu on which I now insist not yet it doth not reach his point unless he prove that Christ hath determined no species of Government for if he hath determined one then all other inconsistent with it are eo ipso prohibited Wherefore though we grant to him that ratio regiminis ecclesiastici is juris naturalis yet we cannot grant except he proves it that the modus of it is juris divini permissivi that is to say it is juris humani but we assert it to be juris divini partim naturalis partim positivi viz. in respect of the divers parts of which that Form is made up which are approved of God § 11. To make up an Obligation whereby we are bound to a thing as duty we assert with him that there is required Legislation and Promulgation of it But what he saith of the way of Promulgation of Divine Positive Laws that is necessary to lay an Obligation on us I cannot fully agree to P. 12. He asserteth that whatsoever binds Christians as an universal standing Law must be clearly revealed as such and laid down in Scripture in such evident terms as all who have their senses exercised therein may discern it to have been the will of Christ that it should perpetually oblige all Believers to the Worlds end as is clear in the case of Baptism and the Lords Supper But because the learned Author could not but see how obvious it was to every one to argue against this Assertion from the instances of the change of the Sabbath and Infant Baptism which he acknowledgeth to be Christs Will and Law established and yet not thus revealed therefore he laboureth to obviate that Argument by this exception to wit that there is not the same necessity for a particular and clear revelation in the alteration of a Law unrepealed in some circumstances of it as there is for the establishing of a new Law The former saith he may be done by a different practice of persons infallibly guided as in the case of the change of the Sabbath and Infant Baptism not so the latter To this I reply a few things 1. It had been good if in an Assertion so fundamental to his whole discourse and so positive for the clearness of Divine Laws he himself had used more clearness there is no small muddiness and ambiguity in his expressions which I must a little remove And first when he saith that Christs Laws must be revealed clearly as such either he meaneth as Hooker Eccles polit defending this Opinion of our Author's expresseth it that they must be set down in the Form of Laws But it is too great presumption to prescribe to him how he should word the intimations of his will to his People or in what mode or form he should speak to them His will manifested to us is that which obligeth us and this may be without such a Form Or he meaneth that Christs Laws must be so clearly revealed as that we may come to know that this we are to do and that to forbear and that he would have us to take notice of it as his Will and this we agree to and do maintain that the Form of Church-Government is thus revealed Another ambiguity is that he requireth them to be laid down in such evident terms as all who have their senses exercised therein may discern them to be his will to oblige us If he mean that they who have competent understanding and means and do seriously search the truth in these things which I suppose is the meaning of having their senses exercised in them may for the objective evidence of the things come to know them this we do not deny if he mean that such will certainly be convinced of them and that there can be no impediment insuperable by them neither in the Object nor in their blindness or prejudice or other Infirmity or Disadvantage that they lye under which may make them that they cannot see that to be the will of Christ which is so revealed this we utterly deny Now 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 loy 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 obliginglaw 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 sucha 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 inclining 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 obligatory but directive I grant likewise that in such examples that which bindeth us is either the moral nature of the action or the law commanding us to follow the example And yet all these concessions yield him no advantage neither bring our cause any loss for when he requireth us who plead for the divine right of a particular form of Church-Government from Apostolical example to shew either the morality of their actions or a law commanding us to follow them I Answer as to the first there needeth no particular demonstration of the morality of Apostolick actions but this we can say for them the nature and condition of the actions and the Apostles doing of them being considered reason will not suffer us to question the morality of them I mean it is certain that they are the will of Christ for we must think that in matters not light and occasional but weighty and of great concernment whether they be well or ill done and which were done on mature deliberation as the administration of the affairs of Christ's house in matters I
on by the Church or rather by Christ the Church declaring his will for so the Church only commandeth other wise we might as well say and it must needs be this Man's Opinion if he believe what here he writeth that when the Church ordaineth a Minister and commandeth him to preach Christ the Magistrate by forbidding him to speak any more in that name maketh null the former Obligation 'T is true the Magistrate may in some cases restrain the outward exercise of what we are so obliged to and also when he doth injuriously forbid such exercise we may be in some cases obliged to cede to this violence but neither of these destroyeth our Obligation to our duty neither the power by which it is laid on more than the Magistrate doth destroy my Obligation to obey my Father or his power over me when he putteth me in Prison and so I cannot do what my Father commandeth The Absurdities that he would fright us with do not follow from our opinion but from his own false supposition For the first it is not absurd that there should be two Supream Powers about things so different that one Power cannot have them both for it's formal Object Will not the Author grant that Ministers have the Supream preaching power that is not subordinate to the Magistrate and the Magistrate the Supream civil Power Why not then that they have the Supream ruling Power in Church affairs These Powers need not clash though they be not subordinate being about things so different as are this world and that which is to come the Soul and the Body But this man feareth that Caesar be dethroned if we confess Christ to be a King and so would have Christ's Kingdome subordinate to Caesar's For the second there cannot be two Obligations here for if the Church keep within her Limits her command is Christ's And so any contrary obligation must be null if not her Authority layeth on no Obligation For the Third it is the same Argument and it admitteth of the same Answer § 8. Having made the Magistrate the sole Judge and determiner in the matters of the Church even Ceremonies themselves our Author proceedeth p. 49. to examine the extent of his Power asserted in his former Hypothesis and here he proceedeth by three steps 1. That there are some things left undetermined by the Word This we assent to as it is here set down but cannot understand it as he doth which appeareth a little after of Ceremonies but rather of bare Circumstances of the worship of God if he take these for one he is very ignorant of the Nature of both neither of the species of Church-Government for which this indifferency of things is here asserted What he discourseth here of the Nature of indifferency I shall not insist upon intending to meet with it elsewhere Only I take notice of his concession p 53. that in things wholly indifferent both in respect of their common nature and their use and end that are neither commanded nor tend to the peace and order of the Church there can be no reason why the Nature of these things should be altered by humane Laws wherefore matters that are indifferent as to a command but are much conducing to the peace and order of the Church are the proper matter of humane constitutions concerning the Churches Policy Let it be here considered that these things are not properly indifferent but commanded viz. where the peace and order of the Church is injoyned and if it be so it is the part of the Church representative not of the Magistrate to Judge what things are thus conducible to peace and order and to hold forth the doing of these as the Laws of Christ § 9. His second step is that matters of this Nature may be determined and restrained and that it is not to the wronging of Christians liberty so to do And this he doth very largely prove against some as he pretendeth of great note and learning I wonder who they are For I never met with any who do deny what he asserteth It is true that many do and that warrantably maintain that where Christ hath left us free man hath no Power by his meer will to restrain us especially in things that belong to the worship of God but all do acknowled ge so far as I know that in things though not expresly commanded which by their nature or circumstances are made conducible to the ends that Christ hath enjoyned us to endeavour the Church may enjoyn us and that without making any new Laws but by declaring the will of God This and no more do all the arguments which the Author with much pains hath set down conclude And indeed if our author had once proved the Species of Church Government to be indifferent we should not deny it to be determinable and imposeable not by the Magistrate but by the Church In the prosecution of his Arguments there occur several things that I cannot assent to but they not being to the Question in hand and intending to touch some of them in a Treatise else-where I pass them here he hath some greedy hints after obeying whatever is commanded though unlawful the non-obligation of the Covenant c. which do discover his spirit Though the Author doth state the Question as hath been said yet all his reasons whereby from p. 56. he proveth the determination of indifferent things not to take away our liberty doth prove as much that determination grounded on mans meer will doth not take it away for in that case there may be left a liberty of judgment and there may be no necessity antecedent to the command as he saith in his first Argument also in that case the determining of the things supposeth them to be matters of liberty which is a second medium and the obligation in that case is only in respect of contempt and scandal which is his third Argument and the repealing of the law or ceasing of the authority commanding may free us of impositions made by meer will which is his fourth Argument Wherefore these Arguments prove that which the Author doth not own if they prove any thing which is a token that they prove nothing at all But that I may shortly answer them The first Argument is inconcludent for though radical liberty i. e. a right to do or not do be consistent with such commands as men without warrant from God lay on us their authority never being able to destroy that right given to us which is founded on the will of God yet these commands are an unlawful taking away of the exercise of our liberty for where neither Scripture nor Reason which are Gods law do bind mans will ought not to bind especially in the things of Religion He hath here p. 57. a gird by the way at them who hold one posture of receiving the Lords Supper to be necessary as more destroying liberty than doth the command of the Magistrate imposing one posture