The first example brought out of the New Testament, are the the feasts of charity, ordained (as the Def. saith) by the Apostles. To which our answer is ready, that if they were ordained by the Apostles, then they were not humane, but divine, and therefore nothing pertaining to our question. To this the Defendants reply is, that if divine be opposed unto constitutions not commanded of God, then we could not have uttered a more unlearned position: because all Divines distinguish betwixt divine, Apostolical, and Ecclesiastical traditions. All Popish Divines indeed do allow of this distinction, because it maketh for their purpose: and some of our English when they write in defence of the Hierarchy, or of the ceremonies: but so deeply to accuse those that refuse it, for want of learning, this is too magisterial For 1. that which came from the Apostles as they were Apostles, that came from the spirit of God, Act. 15. 28. 1. Cor. 7. 40. and to call that divine which hath the divine spirit of God: 1. God himself for author, what want of learning is in this? 2 Junius was a Divine, and learned, yet he saith, that this distinction betwixt Divine and Apostolical traditions, is almost imaginary and superfluous in Bellcont. 1. lib. 4. c. 2. an. 6. Danaeus calleth it a childish distribution, in eund. loc. more learned divines, might easily be named, that do so allow of this distinction. And indeed, to examine it by that learning, by which distinctions are chiefly to be tried, it hath no Logic at all in it. For 1. the distinction pretended betwixt things appointed for perpetual use, and those that may be altered upon occasion: This distinction or difference (I say) is no way contained, in the terms Divine, Apostolical 2. Some things were immediately by Christ appointed, which were not perpetual: ⟨p. 51⟩as many things proper to the Apostles and their times. And some things appointed by the Apostles which were to be perpetual, as the essentials of Ecclesiastical government.
THe first example brought out of the New Testament, are the the feasts of charitie, ordained (as the Def. sayth) by the Apostles. To which our answer is ready, that if they were ordained by the Apostles, then they vvere not humane, but divine, and therefore nothing pertaining to our question. To this the Defendants reply is, that if divine be opposed unto constitutions not commanded of God, then we could not haue uttered a more unlearned position: because all Divines distinguish betwixt divine, Apostolicall, and Ecclesiasticall traditions. All Popish Divines indeed doe allow of this distinction, because it maketh for their purpose: and some of our English vvhen they vvrite in defence of the Hierarchie, or of the ceremonies: but so deeply to accuse those that refuse it, for vvant of learning, this is too magisteriall For 1. that vvhich came from the Apostles as they vvere Apostles, that came from the spirit of God, Act. 15. 28. 1. Cor. 7. 40. and to call that divine which hath the divine spirit of God: 1. God himselfe for authour, vvhat vvant of learning is in this? 2 Iunius vvas a Divine, and learned, yet he sayth, that this distinction betwixt Divine and Apostolicall traditions, is almost imaginarie and superfluous in Bellcont. 1. lib. 4. c. 2. an. 6. Danaeus calleth it a childish distribution, in eund. loc. more learned divines, might easily be named, that doe so allow of this distinction. And indeed, to examine it by that learning, by vvhich distinctions are chiefly to be tried, it hath no Logick at all in it. For 1. the distinction pretended betwixt things appoynted for perpetuall use, and those that may be altered upon occasion: This distinction or difference (I say) is no way contained, in the tearmes Divine, Apostolicall 2. Some things vvere immediatly by Christ appointed, vvhich vvere not perpetuall: ⟨p. 51⟩as many things proper to the Apostles and their times. And some things appoynted by the Apostles which were to be perpetuall, as the essentialls of Ecclesiasticall government.
