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 mstance proveth no more for we permit also the building of Churches to prudence But the question is about things proper to the Church a 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 from some impediment or from inexcusable negligence Much less do I agree to what followeth viz. Although Moses requireth the duty of Assembling yet he prescribes no Orders for the place of meeting nor for the manner of spending these dayes in Gods service nor for the Persons who were to superintend the publick work Ans the first of these as to the Circumstances of it is left to Prudence it being meerly a natural Circumstance of Worship the second for substance is in the law viz. What duties they should spend the day with viz. Sacrificing in the Temple reading the Law and Teaching the People in other places the natural Circumstances of this are also left to prudence The third is falsly asserted are not the Levites appointed to superintend that work when they are made the Publick Teachers of the Peope Wherefore all this maketh nothing for his design viz. That the Jewish Church-Government was left to Prudence and that the Christian should be so Their reading of the Law we approve but deny it to have been voluntary but commanded their curious dividing of it and leaving out some of it we disprove as the fruit of the superstitions of the latter ages of that Church and indeed it may be compared with the frame of our Service-Book though it was not so bad by far I insist not on his guesses
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
much certainty as amounteth to Plerophory and doth dispell all degrees of darkness and doubting this we assert not that every one may attain such is the darkness of Mens minds neither is it needful to this that we look upon what the Apostles did as being juris divini If we mean so much certainty as doth incline the mind to the one part and not leave it in suspence we assert that this may be attained in reference to what is in Question 2. The matter in debate is very obscurely if not fraudulently expressed by these words what course the Apostles took in governing Churches the Question is not whether we can know every thing that they did in this for many particulars are comprehended in this general expression but whether we can know if the setled Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops acting with authority over Presbyters as the ordinary Officers of the Church 3. It is not fair dealing to imply as this Proposition doth that we infer the only divine Right of one form from bare Apostolical practice he knows that we walk upon other grounds viz. we take Christs command of imitating the Apostles the Parity between our case and theirs which may make the morality of our practice to be the same with theirs 4. It is not the one form which several parties imagine to come nearest to Apostolical practice but that which is proved to be really the same with it we plead for it 's not mans imaginations but Scriptural grounds which we establish that correspondency upon we are asserting between Apostolical practice and what we would have to be now in the Church The antithesis then which we maintain against this his Proposition is this That they who search the Scripture may come to be satisfied on good grounds whether the Apostles in planting Churches did setle Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops ruling over Presbyters as their ordinary Officers so as they may considering the duty laid on us to follow them and the parity of our case with theirs infer the divine Right of that one Form of these two which was used by the Apostles For proof of this our antithesis I refer to the consideration laid down p. 184 185. about the perfection of Scripture-history and its design to instruct us in this point which doth so far prevail with me that I look upon the Authors Proposition as such a reflexion on Scripture that any but a Papist may be ashamed of To this I add that the arguments brought for Presbyterial Government by the Assertors of it do evidently destroy the Authors Proposition and do establish our Antithesis which seeing he doth not intend nor endeavour to answer we need not insist upon A further confirmation of our Antithesis shall be to take off the arguments that he hath brought for his Proposition which I now come to Sect. 11. His first argument is p. 287. from the equivalency of the names and doubtfulness of their signification from which the form of Government used in the new Testament should be determined He saith That it is hotly pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the importance of the names Bishop and Presbyter and that there can be no way to come to a determination what the certain sense of these names is in Scripture He maketh out the uncertainty by laying down four opinions about the signification of these names and from this variety of interpretation inferreth that we cannot know what sense they are to be taken in Ans 1. when he saith that it is pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the names of Bishop and Presbyter this is a misrepresentation for 1. There be arguments from which it might well be derived though these names should never be mentioned 2. When we dispute from these Names it is not from the bare force of the word but from this that the Scripture doth often apply these names to the same thing never to divers Officers in the Church and therefore there is no ground for asserting the difference of Bishop and Presbyter This is a surer argument than what can be drawn from the importance of Names Answ 2. It is most false and injurious to the Spirit of God speaking in his word to say that there can be no way to determine what is the certain sense of these names in Scripture We must then say that the Spirit of God speaketh that which cannot be understood if he use names and words to express some thing to us and it is impossible to know what is meant by them When we hear of Bishops and Presbyters in any place of Scripture either we must say that these words signifie nothing or that they mean somewhat but no man can know what it is or that we may come to know what is meant by them The former two are foul reflexions on the Author of holy Scripture yea it were a reflexion on a Man to speak or write in a Book designed for instruction that which either hath no meaning or such as cannot be known The 3d contradicteth our Authors Assertion His proof of the uncertainty of the signification of these Names we have met with before in the like case it is a most unhappy and inconsequential reason Men have divers ways understood these words of the Holy Ghost Ergo they cannot be understood at all They must have a meaning and it is our duty to search it out however Men differ about it There are better Reasons brought by Presbyterians to prove that these two Names signifie the same thing which was incumbent on this Author to answer and not to shift the matter with saying that other Men think otherwise I shall give but this instance or hint which may satisfie any what is the meaning of these words in Scripture Tit. 2. The Apostle leaveth in Crete Titus to ordain Elders or Presbyters verse 5. and telleth him how they must be qualified verse 6 and giveth this reason why they must have such qualifications verse 7. for a Bishop must be blameless If a Bishop were another thing than a Presbyter to what purpose were this reason here brought Ergo they are one and the same thing And if any affirm that these words signifie different things in any place of Scripture let him prove it and we shall yield the cause I might also shew that the same Office and work is every where in Scripture laid on both these and that never any thing is given to the one but what is given to the other but this hath been done and other arguments managed fully by our Writers against Episcopacy neither hath Mr. Stilling had the confidence to answer them though destroying this his Assertion and therefore I shall supersede this labour For the name of Angels of the Churches the argument brought from it is not ours but our opposites Sect. 12. His 2d Argument for the uncertainty of Apostolical practice p. 290.