A late dialogue betwixt a civilian and a divine concerning the present condition of…

Divine. This distinction was used by those that denied the jus divinum of the Lords day. But surely i• i• an i•• grounded distinction, and those that make most use of it, are forced also to distinguish betwixt Jus divinum, and Jus Mosaicum, holding that though God was the Author of the moral Law, yet Moses (no• God) was the Author of the judicial and ceremonial Law: as the Apostles did write some things as Christs Heralds: other things ⟨p. 16⟩as Pastors or Bishops of the Churches; that they were Authors of the latter,¹ promulgators only of the former, and that therefore the former only were Jure divino. Thus saith Salmeron, but he is in this contradicted by Bellarmine, Maldonat, Suarez, and others. Lorinus in Psal. 88.32. noteth, that it was one of the errors of Valentinus and of the Gnostics, that the Decalogue only was from God; and other Laws from Moses and the Elders of Israel. But what saith the Apostle himself after he hath given rules concerning the policy of the Church, Let the Prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge; and the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets. Let your women keep silence in the Churches, &c. Then he addeth, 1. Cor. 14.37. If any man think himself to be a Prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge, that the things that I writ unto you, are the Commandments of the Lord. Do we not also find, the laying on of hands reckoned among those catechetical heads which the Apostles did deliver as perpetual to all the Churches, Heb. 6.2. Papists understand the Episcopal confirmation. Diverse of our writers understand ordination of Ministers, and the several kinds of Church officers. However it is agreed on both sides, it is a thing belonging to the policy of the Church, not to the foundation of faith or piety. I add that the directions given to Timothy and Titus are standing ordinances for all the Churches, as may be proved from 1. Tim. 3.15