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
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
arbitration may compose and end the difference Against this Conceit I bring these Reasons 1. This company is to be called together by the offended party for the Text carrieth the whole managing of the business to be by him and it is very like the stubborn offender will not be active in this now is this a way that our Lord would prescribe for taking away the distemper of a galled mind that his Adversary so the stubborn offender looketh upon the other should chuse the persons before whom he is to be convented and who should judg him this I cannot be induced to believe except I see more proof of it than our Author 's bare saying it is so 2. We must conceive that these three steps of proceeding here prescribed have some notable difference one from another and are remedies of different Vertues and operations applyed to this stubborn Disease Now the first step is secret Admonition the second is Private and Charitable not Judicial the third then must be different from both which I cannot conceive how it is if it be not authoritative In this Authors opinion it is no more but this when two or three Friends cannot accommodate the matter then take a few more having no more but the same power the former two or three had now what great influence can 5 or 6 or 10 have to persuade a stiff offender more than 2 or or 3 using the same motives 't is not to be imagined that the difference can be such as Christ intendeth when he prescribeth this as a remedy of that evil the other could not cure 3. When Christ is here prescribing a cure for offences which may fall out among his people and is so exact in describing all the steps of it and final result thereof we must conceive that his last cure will be such as will effectually root out that evil so as that it do not any more hurt his Church or those who are harmed by it Now if the last mean be only arbitration and no juridical authoritative act this end can never be attained for neither is the stubborn offender gained nor is he taken away that he may not the same way trouble the other party as before What great matter is gained if the wilful party will not hear this advising Church our Author dreameth of he is still a Church-member enjoying the publick fellowship of the people of God for all that these arbitrators can do and suppose some do withdraw private intimacy with them yet we cannot think that all are obliged to it by the authority of private arbitrators declaring him stubborn when all do not know the causes which made them so determine nor the proofs that did convince them of the truth of what was alledged against him It is then evident that this last Remedy of the miscarriage be what it will of a stubborn offender which Christ here prescribeth is an authoritative act and therefore the Church here is no company of private men for arbitration 4. Though we grant that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth any company called together yet here it must be of more restricted signification and must needs signify a company called out of the World by the Gospel to worship God and to serve him in the managing of his affairs and institutions which is not applicable to a company of arbitrators called by a man not by the Gospel to agree contending parties which is a work of duty common to all the World and none of the special works of the Church as distinguished from other Societies Now that the word Church must be thus understood and not as Mr. Stilling would have it I prove 2 dly It is constantly so used by the Writers of holy Scripture neither can an instance be brought in all the New Testament where any ever put Ecclesia for a company met about any business save that the Town-Clerk of Ephesus used it otherwise Acts 19.39 and Luke speaking of him in his own dialect useth it as he did ver 40. But when Christ here speaketh of a Church to which he sendeth his offended people by a standing Law for the redress of their grievances we must certainly conceive that he will have them by the Church to understand that which is ordinarily known by that name in the New Testament for how should they know the meaning of an ambiguous word but by the constant Use of it in the Scripture 2. The demonstrative article added in the Greek putteth the matter beyond all question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a particularly designed Church which they to whom it is said have pointed out unto them not any Church this or that an individuum vagum or such a Church as themselves may particularize or pitch upon it is not a Church but the Church Now a company of Arbitrators chosen ad libitum by the grieved party are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church particularly as individuum determinatum designed by Christ they are at best but a Church and should be here designed only confusè or vage huic aut illi ecclesiae which the word cannot bear Now if we take it for a Ruling-church or whatever Church in Scripture-sense it is here determined what Church we should bring the matter to viz. that particular Church we live in at least in prima instantia and it is not left to our liberty to chuse what Church of many particulars we will complain unto Or if we take the article here prefixed to denote the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that Church here spoken of and to determine the word to its famostus significatum it hath the same strength of an argument for not a company of private Arbitrators but Christians or their Representatives met for the worship of God or administration of the affairs of his House are that Church Sect. 6. I come now to examine what Mr. Stilling hath to say against this interpretation of the place or for that which himself hath devised P. 222. he undertaketh to prove that the Offence here spoken of is not any scandal or Sin against God but a private injury His arguments are 1. from the parallel place Luke 17.3 If thy brother trespass against thee rebuke him and if he repent forgive him this is private injury because a private Brother may forgive it which is not in his power were it a scandal to the whole Church unless we make every private person to excommunicate and release one another Answ That Luke 17.3 4. is parallel to Matth. 18.15 16 17. I do not question and indeed all the Commentators that I have met with make them relate to the same passage of Christs preaching but this if we may lay any weight on the judgment of men doth make much against Mr. Still for he understandeth Matth. 18. not of Scandals but of the bare injury so then must this place also but the Text and context both do make it evident as I conceive that