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 say of this nature we are to think that the Apostles did that which was best and most approved of God they being infallibly guided by his spirit Now that which was best to them must certainly be best to us also we managing the same affairs except some diversity of our case from theirs can be shewn wherefore we are obliged to think that the parity of Ministers in ruling the Church is Christ's will and so a moral duty not a thing indifferent seeing it was so in the Apostolick Churches as I suppose is proved by the maintainers of that way and there is no reason why it should be otherwise with us than with them For the second we have also a law for following Apostolical example as we have for following Christ's example which our Author saith maketh it our duty viz. 1 Cor. 4. 16. Wherefore I beseech you be ye followers of me 1 Cor. 11. 1. Be ye followers of me even as I am of Christ. And lest any think that this command of imitation is only in reference to duties otherways known to be such as faith love c. it is evident that this last place relateth to Church administrations for he prefixeth this exhortation to the doctrine of decency and purity in their worship Beside that the exhortation being general can suffer no exception but where imitation would not have the same morality in us that giving example had in them viz. where the case is different Other Scriptures to the same purpose are Phil. 3. 17. Heb. 6. 12. and this is commended which clearly supposeth a command 1 Thes. 1. 6. and 2. 14. 2 Thes. 3. 9. Ja. 5. 10. Wherefore if we can shew Apostolical practice for our way of Church-Government as I know we can it is incumbent on our adversaries to shew a reason why they did such things which doth not agree to our case or else to submit to that way as that which is Christ's law For the other grounds of divine right that he examineth we insist not on them as not being necessary to the defence of that truth which we maintain Wherefore I wave what might be said against what he there disputeth CHAP. II. § 1. IN the second chapter of the first part of his Irenicum he layeth some hypotheses for a foundation of his following discourse where I shall pass over in silence these things that have truth in them and these also the examining of which is not needful to the present purpose viz. defending Presbyterial Government to be juris divini Only I take notice that here and through his whole book he spendeth most of his pains and learning in proving these points which are either digressions from the present business or are not denied by any of his opposites which is magno conatu nihil agere § 2. In his fourth hypothesis p. 38. some things need our remark he setteth it down thus In things which are determined both by the law of nature and divine positive laws as to the substance and morality of them but not determined as to all circumstances belonging to them it is in the power of lawful authority in the Church of God to determine them so far as they judge them tend to the promoting of the performance of them in due manner Two things in this hypothesis I condemn 1. That he warranteth men to determine things undetermined in the Church so far as they judge needful he should have said so far as is needful for if we hold this his assertion in terminis superstitious men in lawful authority may bind us in all things where Christ hath left us free so that it shall not be lawful to speak look or act in the Church but as they think fit And indeed here is a foundation for almost all the Ceremonies that either Popes or Prelates ever burthened the Church of God with they are nothing but determinations of what is left undetermined and they judge them to tend to promote worship as it is not determined what Garment a Minister shall wear the Church judgeth a Surplice to tend to promote worship then by this hypothesis the Church may determine this which is not only against truth as might easily be shewed if that were now my work but also against this Author who declareth himself against Ceremonies of Mens appointing 2. That he extendeth this determining power so far that not only things undetermined and that must be determined otherwise the Ordinances cannot be gone about without defect or sin may be determined by lawful authority for this we grant and therefore do close with his example of appointing the place and hour for worship but also things that they judge tend to promote the due manner of the Ordinances may be thus determined which a little after he expoundeth of the decency and solemnity of worship This we cannot assent to For there is no pompous Ceremony that ever man devised but they judged it fit to promote the solemnity of worship And indeed the Scripture condemning the pompousness and gaudiness of worship and commending the simplicity of it saith plainly that it is not left to men to add their determinations to God's to make the worship as solemn as they judge meet but that we ought to be content with that solemnity which is made in worship by God's Institutions and the needful determination of circumstances Neither can this blow to his hypothesis be evited by saying that he speaketh only of circumstances which we confess may be determined by the Church For 1. All Ceremonies are also circumstances and he doth not here mention meer circumstances to exclude Ceremonies from the determing power of Authority in the Church 2. Though he should be understood of meer circumstances viz. which are such before they be determined as the habit in which we are to worship yet even such when they are determined by men without necessity only
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
for this is a part of it which he granteth § 5. Another Answer he frameth to our Argument from Christ and Moses p. 177. That if the comparison of Christ and Moses infer an equal exactness of disposing every thing in the Church then we must be bound to all circumstances as the Jews were but there is this difference between the Old and New Testament that there all ceremonies and circumstances were exactly prescribed here there are only general rules for circumstantial things there the very pins of the Tabernacle were commanded here it is not so but a liberty is left for times place persons c. Reply 1. We do not plead for an equal exactness in determining all things We know the Old and New Testament state of the Church requireth a diversity here but we plead for the equal faithfulness of Christ with Moses now Christ was intrusted with setting up a Government in the Church as well as Moses whence it followeth that he behoved to enjoyn the particular Form of it as Moses did seeing without this great matters in the Church even that whereon its Union and Being as a Society do hang are left at a great uncertainty and exposed to the will of man who may and readily will erre 2. The difference that he maketh between the Law and the Gospel is most false viz. That there all circumstances of worship were determined here not so yea it is with more truth observed by some that more circumstances of worship were left to the prudence of men under the Law then now under the Gospel For every one of their actions imposed as sacrifices washings c. had of necessity abundance of circumstances attending them as when how with what Instruments c. Wherefore the more ordinances there were the more circumstances undetermined There is indeed this difference that God under the Law did by his command place Religion in many natural circumstances of worship as in the day of Circumcision of killing the Passover c. and so set them above the degree of meer circumstances which he hath not done under the Gospel but it doth not follow that all things even of greatest moment to Church-Order and the worship of God are now left free because we have not so many Ceremonies as the Jews had for those circumstances which are of Civil and common concernment to Religion and other actions be left to prudence and matters relating to the Government of the Church which are of that nature be also left free yet we must not for that think that the Government it self as managed even the substance of it which must lie in a particular Form seeing a general notion of Government is not practicable is left to the will of men I hope our Author will not say that the Form of Government is a circumstance neither ought he to say that it is a thing of common concernment to the Church and other Societies The Church is a Society singular and of another Nature than others Cant. 6. 9. She is but one the only one of her Mother therefore her Government must be sutable wherefore it ought not to be put in in the same case with the Natural circumstances that accompany all our actions which here the Author most unwisely doth § 6. For a third answer he bringeth reasons why all punctillio's as he is pleased to speak should not be now determined as they were under the Law In this we do not contradict him as appeareth from what is now said Quere non respondes ad rem Neither is it savoury to account the form of Government by which the visible being of the Church doth stand a punctillio Such a diminutive expression is not without contempt But let us hear his Reasons The first p. 179. is taken from the perfection of the Gospel-state above the Jewish That Church needed the fescues of Ceremonies to direct her and must have every part of her Lesson set her This must not be still sub ferula and not dare to vary in any Circumstance which doth not concern the thing it self As boy a at School hath his Lesson and the manner of learning it prescribed At the Vniversity more general directions do serve In that Church every circumstance was determined in this things moral remain in force but circumstantials are left more at liberty Ans. 1. The point in question is not here touched 'T is not questioned whether the Gospel-Church should be loaded with Ceremonies as was the Jewish nor whether in every Circumstance she be bound by a Law though he doth falsly suppose that the Jewish Church was bound in every Circumstance as I have already shewed but rather whether she be bound in any thing besides the moral Law And particularly whether she be bound to a form of Church Government Such loose declamations as this aggravating some absurdities impertinent to the thing in hand are no solid refutations I hope the Church may be bound to a particular form of Government viz. to parity of Ministers and yet have liberty in abundance of circumstances His example of a School-boy and one at the Vniversity of a Son when a Child and when at Age makes nothing against us For in both Cases they are in subjection to some positive commands of the Master or Father So is the Gospel-Church under some such Commands though not so many as the Jews were 2. Is it contrary to Gospel-perfection to be under the Commands of Christ as to a Form of Church Goment and to be ruled by a way of his contriving This must be a strange kind of perfection that he dreameth of We believe that the Church is yet so imperfect and will be while on Earth that she hath need to be Governed by Christs Laws and is far happier in that Case then if she were left to chuse her own way in matters of so great Concernment as is the Form of Church Government 3. Is it not as contrary and far more to the perfection of the Gospel-Church to be under a form of Government imposed by the Magistrate as this man would have us then if it be imposed by Christ Sure Christs Yoke is easier then mens and his device must be better then theirs Indeed in things that concern one Church and not another it is better that the prudence of Governours doth determine then that there be an Universal Law binding all But in things that are equally good to all it is better to be under Christs General then mans particular Law Now the thing in debate Parity or Imparity among Ministers is attended with the same conveniences or inconveniences in all Countries and Conditions and while men are prone to Tyranny on the one hand and to divisions on the other Wherefore it is no ways unfit that Christ should here decide the matter by a general Law 'T is not like the Time or place of meeting which must vary in divers places Neither can he shew us any reason why it should
be one way in one Church and another way in another except mans pleasure which is a bad Rule in the matters of Christ. 4. Whereas he saith that in the Gospel Church things moral remain in their force but circumstantials are left at more liberty I suppose he meaneth Natural morality or things contained in the moral Law and not things that have any morality or goodness by any Law of God for if he meant this latter he doth but trifle for his meaning must be that things which are not determined by any command and have neither good nor evil in them are left at liberty which who doth not know Neither can he say that it was otherwise in the Jewish Church as this his assertion must imply if that be his meaning If he mean the former as certainly he doth then 1. it is an ill division of things that belong to the Church in Morals and Circumstantials Be there not Christs positive institutions which belong to neither of these kind The Lord's Supper is no moral thing in this sence neither I hope is it a Circumstantial thing that is left at liberty 2. If he call all things Circumstantial which are not thus moral and assert them to be left at liberty he doth at one blow cut of all the institutions of Christ and will have the Gospel-Church so perfect as to be under no law of God but the moral Law and what Laws men please to add unto it This I hope he will retract when he considereth what he hath here asserted For I perceive that even learned men can say sometimes they know not what § 7. His second reason p. 180. is this The Form of government among the Jews in the Tribe of Levy was agreeable to the form of Government among the other Tribes and their Ecclesiastical Government was one of their Judicial Laws Wherefore if in this we compare Christ with Moses we must hold it needful that he prescribe also a form of Civil Government Ans. 1. When we compare Christ with Moses we have very good cause to make an exception where the Scripture hath evidently made it We compare them then as two Mediators entrusted with managing the affairs which concern mens Eternal Salvation among which are Church Administrations Hence there is Warrant for stretching that comparison made of them in Scripture to their faithfulness in appointing Church Government but as to Civil Government the Scripture maketh a plain exception when it evidently holdeth forth Moses a State Law-giver as well as a Church Law-giver and it doth as evidently testifie that Christ was not such when he denieth his Kingdom to be of this World Joh. 18. 36. And that he is a Judge and divider of inheritance among men Luk. 12. 14. and his mean condition in the World unlike to Moses maketh this farther appear Wherefore there is no necessity of comparing them in Civil though we compare them in Church-Administrations The Lord was pleased to make the Government of Israel in respect of Church and State both to be Theocratia to give them both kinds of Laws immediately from himself That seeing he hath under the Gospel done otherwise as to State-Government he hath also done otherwise as to Church-Government what a mad kind of consequence is this And there is evident reason of this differing Dispensation under the Law and under the Gospel I suppose if the difference of cases that arise from variety of Circumstances did permit it were the happiest case for God's People to have all their actions and concernments particularly determined by the Lord who is wiser then men now the Lord doth thus with them so far as it hinders not their happiness by a load of multiplicity of Laws Wherefore seeing the Church and State of the Jews were commensurable being in one Nation it was as easie for them to have their State-Laws determined by the Lord as their Church-Laws But it is far otherwise under the Gospel where the Church is spread over so many different Nations of divers dispositions and manners to have determined all things for the Civil Good of all these Nations which must be superadded To the Determinations of Natures Law would have made the Bible a burthen to men But it is not so in Ecclesiastical matters there is nothing peculiar to the Church as a Church or Religious Society but supposing what Nature Dictates may without burthening People with many Laws be determined and imposed upon all Hence is it that the Lord saw it for the good of the Jewish Church to give them both Civil and Church-Laws and for the good of the Gospel Church to give them Church-Laws but to leave Civil-Laws to prudence guided by the general Rules of Scripture and Nature Neither do I think as our Author seemeth sometime to think that it was any part of legal bondage to have Laws from God even in the least matters and that which is Christian liberty to be free from Gods Laws in these things when we are bound to the same by the Laws of men I should rather prefer their state to ours thus far but their bondage was to have many things determined and imposed upon them which were naturally indifferent and so free which the Lord hath now left free under the Gospel Answ. 2. It is not to the purpose to tell us that the Government of the Tribe of Levy was like that of the other Tribes For Church-Government was very different from Civil Government for all that viz. in this that it was in the hand of the Tribe of Levy and no other Tribe which was a positive Institution of God that it did cognosce of other matters than Civil Government did that it did inflict other censures But let it be never so co-incident with Civil Government yet it was of Gods Institution which is all that is needful to our purpose That the Form of Ecclesiastical Government took place among them as one of their Judicial Laws is a groundless Assertion Yea it is a begging of the Question and also taking away the Distinction of Church and State among the Jews which is not needful here to be insisted upon till some man Answer what Mr. Gillespie in his Aarons-rod hath written to this purpose § 8. His third Reason ib. is the People of the Jews were an entire People when their Church-Government was setled the Gospel Church was but in Forming in Christs and the Apostles times they settled what was for the present need of the Church in her first Constitution as in appointing Officers this will not serve when the Church is grown and spread her coat cut out for her Infancy must not be urg'd on her when grown Answ. 1. This doth no way satisfie the comparing of Christ's faithfulness with Moses for Moses gave Laws in the Wilderness not only for that wandring condition but for their setled state in the Land of Canaan Must we then think that Christ took care that the Church in Infancy should have his
doctrines which is true of all uncommanded Customes in Religion But how proveth he this Assertion he bringeth Instances Christ observed the Feast of dedication this is Impudently said he walked in Solomons Porch Jo. 10. 22 23. that he might have occasion to teach the People but did he offer a Sacrifice or observe any other rite or Custome of the Feast we read no such thing going to their Synagogues and teaching there was no uncommanded Custome Washing the Disciples Feet a custom used by the Jews before the passover saith Mr. Still but others say it was done between the 2 courses of the passover this Christ did and giveth a Mystical reason for it Jo. 13. 5. but that he did it in Conformity to the Jewish Custome if any such there was let it be proved appointing Baptism I hope hath a better Foundation than the Jewish Custome but of this before thus what he saith in prosecuting his First consideration is answered neither is it as yet probable that the Apostles imitated the Jewes in framing the Gospel-Church Sect. 7. His 2d consideration p. 257. is that the Apostles framed Christian Churches out of Jewish Synagogues what solid Proof for this he bringeth let us hear We see saith he how fearful the Apostles were to offend the Jews and how ready to condescend to them in any thing that might be and if Paul would yield to them in circumcising Tim. a thing which might seem to cross the design of the Gospel would he scruple to retain the old Model the Synagogue when there was nothing in it repugnant to the doctrine of the Gospel Answ. The Apostles at first did yield very far to the Jews because they could not at the beginning digest the taking down of the old frame of Worship and setting up a new hence they did conform to the Jews for that time as much as might be in their transient and occasional practices but this reason did no way oblige them to frame their constitutions and practices of the Church that were to abide afterward by the Jewish Patern because then the Gospel was fully promulgated and the Will of Christ known to the new Gospel-Church differing from the old and in this case we are rather to think that the Apostles did not conform to the Jewish way in things not necessary because as at first their work was to bring them to Christ and so they yielded to them as much as might be so afterwards now their work was tobring them from Moses and to this end it was fit to bring them off all those customes and waies which might keep that their Idol yet in their minds as sure the Jewish customes might do Here is more then a shew of reason which our Author requireth why the Apostle should slight the constitution of the Jewish Synagogues and besides it is reason enough why they should do this if it be not proved that they did otherwise seeing they were guided by an infallible Spirit not led by mens Customes in their Actions I find no further proof of this consideration but that they did not only gather Churches out of Synagogues but that in probability whole Synagogues in some places were converted What ground there is for this probability I know not we read nothing of it as we read of whole Houses converted neither see I any reason to think that the Apostles did respect Synagogues in their reforming Churches they made the Churches of them who had before been in the Synagogues and that I believe they did according to the Peoples best conveniency for partaking of ordinances together but that their Synagogues were their Pattern I see not Another argument from the Jewish and Gentiles Coetus he would fain be helped by but finding it weak disputeth against it wherefore we lay it aside and come to his 3d consideration p. 260. viz. the Synagogue-Model was most agreable to the State of the Churches in Apostolick times because it was so ordered as that it needed not depend on the Secular Power for attaining the end of Government Answer Wherein the Synagogue-Model was in the nature of the thing fitted to the State of the Gospel we do not say that the Apostles would reject such a good thing because used by the Synagogue only we deny that they used it because the Synagogue used it so this proveth nothing Further it proveth only co-incidency between the Church and Synogogue-Government in this general that both were such as might consist without Secular power but divers particular forms may be of this nature so that there is no need from this consideration that the Church and the Synagogues be governed by the same Model Sect. 8. We see how probable he hath made this his assertion he cometh p. 261. to shew what particular practices of the Synagogue the Apostles did take up and follow and first he speaketh of their publick service in the Church where all that he can attain to is this that there was in the Church as there had been in the Synagogue solemn Prayers Praises reading of Scripture and tâ—aching of the People out of it all which are parts of Moral worship and would have been in the Church though there had never been a Synagogue to take example by he is forced to acknowledge a considerable difference viz. omitting the reading the Sections of the Law as was done in the Synagogue and celebrating the Lords Supper which was not in it which one consideration destroyeth all that he is at so much pains to establish for if Christ and his Apostles had made the Synagogue their pattern they might easily have conformed to them in reading the Sections of the Law and taking the Lords Supper from some of their customes as well as they did Baptism as this Author alledgeth Next he cometh p. 264. to ordination about which he maketh a great deal of do but to no purpose for Ordination i. e. a Solemn setting of men apart for the Office of the Ministry doth naturally follow as necessary to Order supposing that some should be in that Office and the work be not common to all which I believe should have been in the Church whatever had been done in the Synagogue as for the Rite of it laying on of hands whether it was used in the Synagogue or not is not worth our enquiry for it will not thence follow that the Apostles took it from the confederate discipline of the Synagogue i. e. from their men-devised Customes as our Author confidently asserteth but all that he discourseth proveth not this but only if it prove any thing that it was used in the Synagogue I assert with more warrant that it was taken up both by the Synagogue and by the Apostles from the ancient custome of blessing or dedicating any thing to God by this Ceremony of this Judgment is Calv. Inst. lib. cap. 4. Sect. hunc autem ritum fluxisse arbitror ab Hebraeorum more qui quod benedictum aut consecratum volebant manuum