Catholick is of which declared Hereticks are no part And thus the Church shall still be to the end of the world a City upon a Hill and united within it self even in its greatest persecutions conspicuous to those who sincerely bend their course to it Again it seems that near the time of the worlds dissolution from this total Apostacy through great persecutions from the faith in some and from the sound doctrines of the Orthodox faith in others because both false Religions and such Heretical doctrines as the Apostles speak do all tend some way or other to vitiousness of life to libertinism and inducements of the flesh See 2 Pet. 2.3 10 18 19. Phil. 3.18 19. 1 Tim. 6.5 2 Tim. 3.2 7. c. see Trial of Doctrines § 32. there shall abound very great wickedness and much security amongst the then heavy oppressors of God's Church much what like to the days of Noah and of Lot when God shall come upon them unexpectedly to judgment But this is no failing of the Church which shall then remain an Holy City at unity in it self see Rev. 20.9 And if also within the Church it self the vitious shall out-number the pious neither is this any prejudice to the truth of the Churches doctrines since the same thing happens less or more in all ages that the wicked here-in are more than the good as St. Austin hath taken notice and much pains to prove to the Donatists urging some of the former texts De unitate Ecclesiae 12. 13. c. § 64 Thus much of the first head proposed before § 1. viz. The Clergies being delegated by our Lord departing hence the infallible preservers of all Truth and Necessary faith and supreme Judges in all controversies arising therein Now to proceed to the 2d Next this Authority to secure it for ever from any decay or interruption thereof is given them to the end of the world without dependance on any save the Lord Jesus they being Embassadors of salvation from the King of Kings to all Nations and so to be every where free from all violation For which there is the greatest reason since their constitutions are such as cannot do the least wrong or hurt to any secular dominion nay brings great security to it and since this their Ministery because without a Sword can be no Government or Discipline comes armed only with a Spiritual sword and not a Temporal and lastly since Christianity the Doctrine they plant gives no man any priviledge interest or advantage by it in this world or for Secular matters but maintains every Kingdom and State in the same condition wherein it finds it and only obligeth men to pray always for such State 1 Tim. 2.2 and to yeild all strict obedience to it Rom. 13.1 1 Pet. 2.13 and upon no pretence of maintaining Religion to use or to advise to use the material Sword or any otherwise to defend the truth than 1. by confessing it 1. in practising its Precepts at all times among which yet one necessary-one is publick assembling together to worship God c. Ecclesiacticos coetus humanis legibus interdictos ob divinum praeceptum Christiani intermittere non possunt Grot. sum Imp. circa sacra and 2ly by suffering for it The Christian profession therefore never troubles the Civil peace which cannot be broken but by Arms and therefore whatsoever disturbs the civil peace may be lawfully punished on any person whatsoever by the temporal Sovereign power for it is not the Christian profession I say lawfully purished unless in respect of some persons such temporal Magistrate make over this power to another which thing doubtless may be lawfully done if for example the Prince shall not think it so decent c that he should sit in Judgment and inflict corporal punishment upon a Bishop his Spiritual Father by whom he is to be guided and corrected and if need be censured and Spiritually punished concerning greater matters see 1 Cor. 6.3 Or That the Priest one day should summon the Civil Magistrate to his Tribunal the next the Magistrate Him or upon other reasons And perhaps This remitting of the Trial of Clergy-men even in Civil matters to their Spiritual Superiors so that the Secular power only useth the Temporal sword upon them when the other deliver them up to it as it may preserve more reverence in the people toward the Ministry so may it conduce to a more severe animadversion from such Judges supposing the Fathers of the Church to be of that sanctity and integrity which they do profess upon such Malefactors than any other way could And whether it was upon these or some other motives t is plain that such Concessions by several Emperors and Princes have bin made to the Church § 65 And the Judgment also when such disturbance is shall belong to his not to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal So Solomon confin'd Ahiathar the High-Priest 1 Kin. 2.26 27 compar'd with ch 4 v. 4. whom had he pleas'd he might also have put to death see 1 King 2.26 27. not for Error but for Rebellion not that the King may meddle or hath any power or Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical affairs over or in opposition to the Priest to do any thing save the assisting the Spiritual Sword with his Temporal and the using his Civil power for the service of the Church See Calv. Instit l. 4. c. 11. s 15. For the Priest having lawful power to excommunicate the Civil Magistrate for Heretical Opinions How can again the Civil Magistrate have a lawful power for the same cause to depose the Priest But over Ecclesiastical persons medling without his leave and beyond their Lord's Commission in affairs Temporal But then if the Secular power in his taking care of the Commonwealth's safety is pleas'd to Decree the Church's Religious Assemblies either for worshipping God or composing Laws for the Church to be Conspiracy or make their Preaching or coming within his Territories Treason only because they possibly may for how can any be sent by Christ to whom this may not be objected not because it is proved that they do any hurt to it or provoked by some particular persons who transgressing their Commission from Christ do some acts or hold some opinions prejudicial to the safety thereof should therefore condemn and execute all others of the same Order against whom the same fault cannot be prov'd and who abjure such horrid Tenents should he interpret any their medling with his Subjects whom our Saviour sends unarm'd like Lambs among Wolves to be subverting of his State and their Spiritual Sword inconsistent with or frustrating his Temporal he now usurps upon our Saviour's Authority and they must go on through all his Torments by way of the Cross which shall certainly conquer at last not of the Sword with which those Ministers shall perish that take it up Mat. 26.52 against those powers to which only it is committed Rom 13.14 to do their Office with that answer to him Act.
also may lawfully disobey and not do it One would think either the Magistrate ought to be certain that what he commands is right before he may punish any for disobeying his command or the Subject ought to be certain that what he commands is not right before he may disobey it But yet neither is the one or the other held any certain Judg in these matters we speak of Nor yet do these men leave any third person that being so may guide and regulate them But the one lawfully commands and punishes him for that which the other lawfully disobeys Where in effect every one in things Spiritual is finally committed to his own Judgment whilst they leave none at all above others that may so decide what is contrary to God's Law what not as to constrain submission thereto further than their private judgment concurs And the only absolute obligation we have to any of their commands is to non-resistance of the punishment But then suppose one thinks this also namely that we should be bound in all cases even where we are innocent or also truly religious to non-resistance c. to be a thing contrary to Scripture as there want not many of late who have been so perswaded then their commands will oblige such an one in no sense at all and so indeed will be no commands as to such a person for effectus imperii est obligatio Lastly the authority these men do give to the Church is except that which she derives from the Civil power only regimen suasorium or declarativum and so sine obligandi jure But this is making our obedience to her if it may be so call'd at all no more than that we give to any other private man administring as we think good Counsel to us which is sufficiently confuted before Only in all this you may observe That whilst these wary Factors for Truth are afraid to acknowledg such an obedience enjoin'd to the Church as to believe that to be the meaning of the Divine Law or not to be truth or error that she tells them to be so then much less can allow such an obedience to Secular power they in avoiding these two yeild this judgment of what is truth what is not in these matters of highest concernment to be left by God to every one which exposeth the Christian world to far more and grosser errors as daily experience thereof sheweth than would in probability either of the other But yet this pleaseth because thus the staters of the question make themselves also Judges See more of this subject in Ancient Church-Government c. § 72 Christ therefore to avoid such confusion hath establish'd his Church for guiding the World for ever in his truths upon such firm Laws and Canonical Orders that no Civil Authority may be admitted at any time to meddle in stating any Church-affairs against the major part of the Clergy and its Governors And if secular Princes anciently in a Council even when they generally agreed in opinion with the Bishops had in Ecclesiastical affairs no defining but only a consenting suffrage how come they enabled to define any thing in these when they are against the Bishops See St. Ambrose his words l. 2. ep 13. quoted by Dr. Field l. 5. c. 53. when he was cited to be judg'd in a matter of Faith by Valentinian the Emperor which conclude it cannot be without usurpation of that which no way pertaineth to them that Princes should at all meddle with the judging of matters of Faith neither had it been heard of but on the contrary that Bishops might and had judg'd Emperors in matters of Faith Quando saith he speaking to Valentinian audisti clementissime Imperator in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicasse Ita ergo quadam adulatione curvamur ut sacerdotalis juris simus immemores quod Deus donavit mihi hoc ipse aliis putem esse credendum Si docendus est Episcopus a Laicis quid sequetur Laicus ergo disputet Episcopus audiat Episcopus discat a Laico At certe si vel Scripturarum seriem divinarum vel vetera tempora a tractemus Quis est qui abnuat in causa sidei in causa inquam fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare Pater tuus Valen. sen Imp. vir maturioris aevi dicebat non est meum judicare inter Episcopos See the like in Athanasius Epist ad solitariam vitam agentes Quando unquam judicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritatem habuit See many more like testimonies collected by Champney De Vocatione Minist c 15. And see the Concessions of Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. p. 29 332. And of Calvin no zealous Vindicator of the Church's Authority Inst l. 4. c. 11. § 15. And of many others cited in Church-Government Par. 5. And see more of this matter in Church-Government Par. 1. And if the Church to use some of Mr. Thorndikes words subsisted before any secular power was Christian extended beyond the bounds of any one's Dominion in one visible Society with equal interest in the parts of it through several Dominions endow'd with such power in Spiritual matters as is set down before what Title but Force can any State have whilst this Body continues to exercise its power not only without but against it Dr. Field in Answer saith That such power belongs to the Clergy regularly but may be devolv'd to Princes in cases of necessity In what case i.e. If the Clergy through malice or ignorance fail c. That the Prince having charge over Gods people c. may condemn them falling into gross errors contrary to the common sense of Christians or into Heresie formerly condemn'd l. 5. c. 53. formerly condemn'd For saith he we do not attribute power to a Prince or Civil state to judge of things already resolved on in a general Council no not if they err manifestly and intolerably but only to judge in those matters of faith that are resolved on and that according to former resolutions From which I gather That Princes can define nothing against the Clergy i. e. the more considerable part thereof else there was never any thing so absurd a Prince can propose but that he may find or make some of the Clergy to join with him but protect what is already first defined by the Clergy in a former General Council But if so then his power with hardly extend to the points of Reformation since how few are those Heresies amongst the many points of the Roman Church from which the Reformed have departed which are solemnly condemned some of them they say are defined by General Councils I suppose therefore we must found the Princes Ecclesiastical authority on the other member if the Clergy err against the common sence of Christians or as Mr. Thorndike expresseth it when the Ecclesiastical power abolisheth any of matters already determined by our Lord and his
calls General rather than from Rome to other parts had not a preeminency of Power and not only a precedence of Rank bin acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome CORRIGENDA Page 29. l. 7. else he would Page 55. l. 80. thro five or six Page 115. l. 3. except that of one or two of his Predecessors CONCERNING ANCIENT CHURCH-GOVERNMENT PART I. Of the Authority and Subordinations of Ecclesiastical Governors § 1 FOR the better Governing of the Church of Christ in Truth Unity Uniformity and Peace Subordination of Clergy and for the easier suppressing of all Errors and Divisions and for rendring all the Church of God tho dispers'd thro several Dominions but one visible compacted Society we find anciently these Subordinations of superior Clergy 1. Presbyters 2. Bishops 3. Metropolitans and amongst Metropolitans Primates 4. Patriarchs and amongst these Patriarchs a Primate § 2 Of these Patriarchs in the first General Council of Nice held A. D. 325. there were only Three call'd Three Patriarchs only at the first at the first by the common name of Metropolitants tho with a distinct authority from the rest Then by the name of Primates 2. Gen. Con. Const can 2.5 this name also being common to some others Afterward by the name of Patriarchs Conc. Chalc. Act. 3. 8 Gen. Conc. can 10 Neither was this name tho most frequently always applied only to the Patriarchs of the first Sees But we find in the East the Primates of Asia minor Pontus Thrace and many others to the number of nine or ten call'd by Socrates who writ in the fifth Age Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 8. Patriarchs call'd so as well as by the name of Primates in respect of some other Bishops or also Metropolitans subject to them yet which Patriarchs had also a subordination and subjection to some of these prime or major Patriarchs of whom we here speak as appears in the Church-History and especially in Conc. Chalced. Act. and Act. 16. And we find also in the West after A. D. 500. several Primates in France Italy Spain call'd Patriarchs as the Primate of Aquileia Gradus Lions see Conc. Matiscon 2. in praefat Priscus Episcopus Patriarcha dixit c. See Greg. Turon 5. hist 10. Paul Diacon l. 2. c. 12. Greg. Epist l. 11. ep 54. yet over whom the Roman Bishop the major Patriarch of the West exercis'd a superiority and Patriarchal jurisdiction both before and after that we read this name given to them as will appear hereafter in this discourse and more particularly in the matter of the Letters of Leo and Gregory and other Popes written upon several occasions to divers of them This I note to you that the commonness of the name may not seem to infer an equality of the authority Now to go forward § 3. n. 1. The first of these the Bishop of Rome The first and chief of these was the Bishop of Rome whose Patriarchship the Bishop of Derry Vind. Ch. Eng. c. 5. p. 62. and Dr. Hammond of schism c. 3. p. 51 52. following Ruffinus Eccl. Hist l. 1. c. 6. one less to be credited in this matter because by the Bishop of Rome formerly excommunicated see Anstasius 1. ad Johan Hierosol make very narrow and much inferior to that of the two other Patriarchs whereof one had subjected unto him all Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis and the other all Syria and the Oriental Churches allowing to the Bishop of Rome only regiones suburbicarias in the Eastern parts of Italy and the Islands of Sicily Sardinia The extent of his Patriarchate and Corsica near adjoining to it But over these Churches that Bishop might have some more immediate superintendency and Metropolitan or Primat-ship contradistinct to other Metropolitans as to that of Millan c. So the Primat of all England hath yet a particular superintendency over one Diocess more than over the rest of which more particular superintendency over the regiones suburbicariae as he was their Primate or Metropolitan Ruffinus seems to speak and perhaps the 6th canon of Nice Mos antiquus perduret in Aegypto vel Lybia Pentapoli ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habet potestatem quoniam quidem Episcopo Romano parilis mos est Similiter autem apud Antiochiam caeterasque Provincias honor suus unicuique servetur Ecclesiae may be thought partly to intend it for which consider those words in that 6th Canon caeterasque Provincias compared with Concilium Constantinopolitan 2. Can. and Conc. Ephes 8. can Yet do not these Canons therefore abrogate and superior rights of any Bishop quae prius atque ab initio sub illius seu antecessorum suorum fuerit potestate to use the phrase of the forementioned 8th Canon of Ephesus but confirm them not only the Metropolitan but also whatever Patriarchal Rights they held formerly as appears in those first words of the 6th Nicene Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which see more below § 19. from which the Roman Primacy was both urged by Paschasius a Legat of the See Apostolick in the 4th General Council and also acknowledged by the Council in their Epistle to Leo. See below § 25 n. 2. And again on the other side as Bellarmin de Rom. Pontif. 2. l. 18. c. observes the Pope's being Caput Ecclesiae universae supposing him to be so in some general way of superintendency or for some particular acts and offices as suppose for receiving appeals deciding controversies between the chief Governors of the Churches admitting them to and deposing them from their places obliging them pro tempore with his decrees hinders not but that he may be also a Patriarch a Metropolitan a Bishop in respect of some other more immediate super-intendencies and offices divers from the former which he doth actually exercise over some particular Church or Churches but doth not so over others or which also he cannot exercise over the whole as he doth over those particular Churches as suppose for ordaining the inferior Bishops and Presbyters and hearing their causes personally officiating in the Word and Sacraments receiving and distributing the Ecclesiastical revenue thereof c. Nor again e converso as Cardinal Perron in answer to K. James observes doth his governing only the Roman Province as their Metropolitan or only Italy as their Primate hinder that he should govern the West also as their Patriarch Nor again doth his governing the West as their Patriarch because he was Bishop of Rome the chiefest city of the West hinder that he may not also as S. Peter and S. Paul's Successor there to one of whom the Jew and to the other the Gentiles were committed Gal. 2.7 9. have some special superintendency over all the Church Jew and Gentile I know § 3. n. 2. it is earnestly pleaded by Bishop Bramhal Vind. 8. c. p. 251. and Rep. to S.W. 10. s. p. 69. That to have an universal Headship over the Church and to have a
Emperor after 1080 what is establish'd by such a Synod not General is too weak to overthrow any former rights of the Church Neither is Balsamon's a later Greek Writer's authority much to be stood upon in this controversie Neither speaks he home in this point whether the Patriarch is to admit what the Emperor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after he hath represented to the Emperor that it is against the Canons Thus much of the 12th Canon In the 17th Canon and the 38th in Trullo Here is only upon the Emperor's building a new City or perhaps upon his transferring the Civil right and priviledges of having the seats of Judicature c. from one City in a Province unto another and upon this subjecting some other inferior Cities or Towns call'd Parochia's when being the jurisdiction of an ordinary Bishop see Hammond Schism p. 57. unto it the subjecting also of the Bishops of those Parochiae under that City to the Bishop of that City Where note First that these Canons speak only of the subjecting of Parochial Bishops to new Metropolitans where new Cities are builded and not of altering any thing in the jurisdiction of old which the 12th Canon of the same Council so expresly opposeth Secondly Only of subjecting Parochial Bishops to new Metropolitans not of subjecting Metropolitans to new Patriarchs nor yet to new Primates For 't is most clear that this very Council that made this Canon never dreamt of any power the Emperor had to erect a new Patriarch as I have shew'd before § 43. and much less Leo the Bishop of Rome who confirm'd these Canons yet vehemently opposed the Council seeking to erect Constantinople into a Patriarchy much more would he have opposed the Emperor Thirdly Whatever priviledge the Emperor here receives methinks their ordering that such a thing should be done subsequatur is far from sounding that they yeilded such a thing to belong to the Emperor by right as Dr. Hammond expounds it Schis p. 119. But then if the Emperor hold such priviledge from the Church the Church when they please may resume this power for so himself argues concerning any priviledges which Secular Princes have formerly conceded to the Bishop of Rome and then hear what the 21th Canon of the 8th General Council saith if we will trust later Councils not far distant in time better to understand the concessions of former Definimus neminem prorsus mundi potentium quenquam eorum qui Patriarchalibus sedibus praesunt inhonorare aut movere a proprio throno tentare Sed omni reverentia honore dignos judicare praecipue quidem sanctissimum Papam senioris Romae c. § 45 As for the things mention'd afterward by the Doctor p. 120 c. the power of changing the seat of a Bishop or dividing one Province into many as likewise the presenting of particular persons to several Dignities in the Church which also private Patrons do without claiming any superiority in Church-matters some of which seem of small consequence as to Ecclesiastical affairs Yet are not these things justly transacted by the Prince's sole Authority without the approbation first of Church-Governors But the same things may be acted by the Church alone the Prince gain-saying if he be either Heathen or Heretick which also shews his power when orthodox in the regiment of the Church to be only executive and dependent on the Ecclesiastical Magistrate's No persons are or at least ought to be put into any Church-dignities without the authoritative consent and concurrence of the Clergy who if they reject such persons tho presented by Princes as unorthodox or otherwise unfit they cannot be invested in such Offices Hear what the 8th General Council saith of this matter Can. 22. Sancta universalis Synodus definit neminem Laicorum principum vel potentum semet inserere electioni vel promotioni Patriarchae vel Metropolitae aut cujuslibet Episcopi ne videlicet c. Praesertim cum nullam in talibus potestatem quenquam potestativorum vel caeterorum Laicorum habere conveniat Quisquis autem saecularium principum potentum vel alterius dignitatis Laicae adversus communionem ac consentaneam atque Canonicam electionem Ecclesiastici ordinis agere tentaverit Anathema sit The transplanting of Bishopricks and division of Provinces probably was never order'd by Princes but either first propos'd or assented-to by the Clergy see that instance of Anselm Hammond of Schis p. 122. or upon some more general grant indulgently made to some pious Princes from the chief powers of the Church Tho Historians commonly in relation of such facts mention only the King's power as by whose more apparent and effectual authority such things are put in execution in which things negative arguments that such persons as are not mention'd did not concur especially when they are mention'd to concur in some other acts of the same nature are very fallacious But imagine we once the power of erecting Patriarchies and Primacies and by consequence of the bestowing and transferring the several priviledges thereof solely cast into the hands of a Secular Prince and then this Prince not orthodox a supposition possible and what confusion and mischief must it needs produce in such a body as the Church strictly tyed in Canonical obedidience to such Superiors and submitting to their judgment and decisions in spiritual matters by which the King may sway the controversies in Religion within his own Dominions what way he pleaseth unless we will imagine there shall be no Ecclesiasticks at all of his own perswasions whom he may surrogate into the places of those who gainsay Such were the times of Constantius And by such violent and uncanonical expulsion and intrusion of Prelates the face of Religion was seen changed and re-changed so often here in England within a few years according to the fancies of the present Prince as if there were in her no certain form of truth And the same thing we have seen done before our eyes in our own days The removing inducting deposing promoting Ecclesiastical persons as the Secular power pleaseth being also a changing of the Church's Doctrine as it pleaseth Thus much to what Dr. Hammond hath said Schis p. 120 c. § 46 Lastly Schis p. 125. he makes three instances in the fact of the Kings of Judah in the fact of St. Paul and in the fact of the Christian Emperors tending to this purpose that their authority is supreme in Ecclesiastical causes as well as Civil and therefore may erect Patriarchies His words there are The authority of Kings is supreme in all sorts of causes even those of the Church as well as Civil as appears among the Jewish Kings in Scripture David ordering the courses of the Priests Solomon consecrating the Temple Hezekiah 2 Chron. 29. 2 King 18. and Josiah 2 King 22. ordering many things belonging to it And so St. Paul appeal'd from the judgment of the chief Priests to the Tribunal of Caesar So in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
was Jehojada the High Priest an extraordinary person 2 Chron. 24.15 who aftersward reform'd the Church 2 Chron. 23. To Joash revolting after Jehoiadah's death was sent the Prophet Zechariah Jehoiadah's Son 2 Chron. 24.20 To Amaziah also when he in his later days turn'd aside was another Prophet sent 2 Chron. 25.15 Afterward God sent Zechariah a Prophet for the guide of Vzziah his Son who after Zechariah's death presuming to meddle with Holy things was sharply rebuk'd and thrust out of the Temple by the zealous Priests 2 Chron. 26.5 17 20. In wicked Ahaz's time were many Prophets sent in a time of much iniquity Hosea Amos Micha Isaiah and others of the Minor Prophets then or sooner To Manasses also and the people of his days were Prophets sent see 2 King 21.10 and 2 Chron. 33.10 who spake unto them but they would not hearken Lastly in the times after Josiah were the Prophets Jeremiah Ezechiel Zephaniah and others rising betimes and sending his Messengers because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling-place as it is said 2 Chron. 36.15 And to these extraordinary Prophets being forerunners and types of our Saviour the great Prophet that was promised Deut. 18.15 18. where those who well-inclin'd went with great reverence to resort to hear the words of the Lord from them denouncing God's judgments upon sin preaching repentance and upon it eternal redemption by the future Messias See Ezech. 8.1 33.31 Jer. 36. 2 King 4.23 § 29 5. It seems That such constant Guides unerring as to matter of knowledg necessary to Salvation were requisite to those times before the Captivity in this respect because tho the Law was written yet there was no great plenty of the Copies and perhaps none entire save what were in the hands of the Priests or Levites The Original was commanded to be put at the side of the Ark Deut. 31.25 Out of which the Priests had a Transcript and out of this another Copy'd for the King Deut. 17.18 19. But that such Copies were not very common see 2 Chron. 17. 9. where the Priests and Levites that were sent by Jehoshaphat from Jerusalem to teach in the Country are said to have taken the Book of the Law with them and 2 King 22.8 10 11. where the Book of the Law perhaps the Original after Manasses his persecution is said to have been found by chance as it were in the Temple in repairing the House Which I do not urge as if there had been no Book of the Law at all preserv'd in any hand if this had not been found but only to shew that it was then very scarce for that pious King tho now in the Eighteenth year of his Reign had not seen it before and ill times between Hezechiah and Josiah could not have render'd it so rare if the former times had abounded with Copies thereof As for the practice enjoined Deut. 6.7 8 9. it was not for the entire body of the law but only for some choice and select pieces thereof of more general concernment as may be perceived by the narrowness of the Tables wherein these were to be written § 30 6. At least there seems as much necessity of such Guides under the writings of the Old Testament as under those of the New whereof as the Writings are more common so also more plain all those things being fulfilled and explained in the Gospel which were shadowed only and typified in the law 2 Cor. 7.12 c. Now under the Gospel I shall shew you by and by that God hath left Guides unerrable for all necessary knowledge in all matters of salvation These things therefore being first recommended to your consideration as also this That the Donatists long since urged some of these Objections for the failing of the Church under the law and that S. Austin hath answered them in defence of its not failing see S. Austin Epist. 48. De Vnitate Ecclesiae cap. 12,13 Contra Donat. post Collationem 20. c. § 31 To α. The texts urged out of the Prophets I answer That some of them speak not of the Priests errors at least in truths necessary but of their vitiousness and here the people were to follow their sayings not their doings Again some not of their false doctrines or expositions of the Law but of their false predictions they some of them acting in opposition to those sent by God Prophets as well as Priests and being in this respect ignorant blind and false Guides See Jer. 23.27 28. c. Again some Prophetical only of the falling away of that Church after the coming of the Messias and substitution of the Church of the Gentiles Again That some indeed speak of the falling away in some times of a great part of the Priests if not into Heresy yet unto Open idolatry But yet this we say hindereth not but that the people in all times might have some orthodox Clergy to adhere to and this a body distinct and easily discernable from the party falling away as hath bin shewed before in Consid 3. p. 33. and amongst them had the High Priest for their chief Guide who cannot be shewed in any of those times to have A postatized to idolatry And this body of Clergy that persevered orthodox we may well imagin to nave behaved themselves for their Courts or Sanedrim for their Assemblies and such Divine Services as might be performed without the Temple in some such manner under the persecuting Kings of Judah as the Apostles and their Successors did under the persecuting Emperors Lastly that when the Prophets in some places name all the Clergy or Priests to be ignorant blinded c. they mean for the reasons given above in Consid 2. p. 28. only many of them All of such a place of such a relation or sect there in a manner all as is not unusual elsewhere see Ps 14.3 Phil. 2.21 which answer is not mine but was given along ago by S. Austin to the Donatists urging such texts De unitate Ecclesiae c. 1. Plerumque Sermo Divinus impias turbas Ecclesiae sie redarguit tanquam omnes tales sint nullus bonus omnino remanserit Inde quippe admonemur in suo quodam numero eos dici omnes c. and contra Donat. post collat 20. More suo Scripturalloquitur quae sic arguit malos tanquam omnes in eo populo mali sint sic consolatur bonos tanquam omnes ibi tales sint In populo Corinthiorum quod dicimus demonstramus ne forte arbitrentur Prophetarum tantum moris fuisse sic arguere reprehensihiles quasiomnes in eo populo arguantur c. § 32 To β. This place is interpreted by some of the time of the Judges and then as is answered to α it must be understood not of all but of a great part of Israel for all this time God's true worship was preserved in Shiloh at least where the Ark Tabernacle and Altar was setled and which the piously-affected yearly frequented See
honestis or the like licitis I mean lege divina But if we have any doubt concerning this we are to repair from him not to our own judgment but to the Spiritual Magistrates and according as they shall declare the lawfulness or unlawfulness hereof we are to yeild or withdraw our active obedience to the Civil neither can this Civil Magistrate justly punish us for not observing his Laws when pronounc'd by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate opposite to the Divine And in such case we may answer to them as the Apostles who were then the chief Ecclesiastical Judges twice answer'd to the Sanedrim which was then exauthorized that we ought to obey God rather than men But to the Ecclesiastcal Magistrate we owe an obedience advanc'd beyond the former limitation being not only to do what they command if it be lawful or subscribe or swear to what they require if it be true but to believe that to be lawful or unlawful that to be truth or error I say in these Divine matters what they tell us is so without repairing concerning these to any other Judg. We are to yeild the same obedience to these Delegates of Christ our Lord touching Divine Laws as to a Temporal Supreme Legislator concerning his own Laws that are made in things left purely indifferent by the Divine Laws The Commands of which Temporal Legislators in the foresaid matters we are to obey not only when we our selves judg that they do accord with his Laws but also when we doubt of the meaning of his Laws we are to learn their true sense from him to obey him in all his Laws and to know from him what are his Laws For as he or his Delegates have authority to determine Controversies concerning the Secular Laws to put an end to contentions so have I shew'd the Church Magistrates to have to determine Controversies concerning the Divine Laws § 56 Against this so absolute Obedience and Submission of Judgment to the Church-Governors under the Gospel there are several Scriptures urg'd and necessary to be explain'd before we proceed further which Scriptures seem to licence all men lest perhaps they should be misguided to try and that by the same Scriptures their Teachers Doctrines that so if not finding their Doctrine according with these Scriptures they may so far withhold their assent to them For this are urg'd first Joh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life and they testifiâ— of me 2ly Act. 5 17.1â— These the Bereans were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they receiv'd the word that Paul preach'd to them with all readiness of mind and search'd the Scriptures daily whether those things were so 3ly 1 Cor. 10.15 I speak as to wise men Judg ye what I say 4ly 1 Joh 4.1 Try the Spirits whether they be of God 5ly 1 Thes 5.21 Prove all things hold fast that which is good 6ly Gal. 1.8 9. Though we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel to you then that which we have preach'd unto you let him be accursed To which Texts is added the utter uselesness as to Spiritual matters of private Judgment in such an universal submission requir'd to a Judg. § 57 In Answer to these Texts First it is to be noted in general That trial of Doctrines by Scriptures is either of the Doctrines of private Teachers made by the Church-Governors of which trial no question is made Or of the Doctrines of private Teachers made by private men And these also they may try by the Scriptures so that they guide themselves lest our trial be mistaken in the sense of these Scriptures according to the Exposition thereof by the Church i.e. in her General Councils or in the most unanimous consent of those whom our Saviour departing left to be the Guides of the Church and Expositors of the Scriptures And if thus searching we find the Doctrines of our Teachers contrary to the Scriptures so expounded we may and ought to with-draw our belief from them Or this trial 3ly by Scriptures is of the doctrines of the Church i.e. of those doctrines which are deliver'd not by a private Teacher but by a general consent of the Church-guides at least the fullest that we can discover Or by General or other Superior Councils or by the Apostles or by our Saviour himself 1. Now the allowance of such a trial may be understood in two senses 1. Either in this sense Search or try my or our Doctrine by the Scriptures for you will surely find my Doctrine agreeing thereunto if you do search right and as you ought and in this sense the trial by the Scriptures of the Doctrines of the Church nay of the Apostles S. Paul's by the Bereans nay of Christ himself Whether the Old Testament as he urged testified of him is both allowed and recommended for since there is no difference of the teaching of Christ or of S. Paul or of the Church from the teaching of the Scripture the one will never fear but freely appeal to a trial by the other if it be rightly made § 58 2. Or 2ly it may be understood in this sence Search and try my Doctrine by the Scriptures and if you in the search do not perceive it agreeable unto them I declare that you have no reason to believe or that you are excusable in rejecting my Doctrine Now in this sence our Saviour or St. Paul or the other Scriptures never recommended private mens searching or gave any such priviledge to it unless you put this clause that they have searched aright But if you put in this clause then is the searcher after his searching not yet at liberty to disbelieve the Apostles or the Churches doctrine till he is sure first that he hath searched aright I say our Saviour or the Scriptures cannot recommend Searching in such a sence or upon such conditions § 59 1. First because such a Searcher or Tryer by the Scriptures there may be as is prejudiced by passion or interest or miseducation or as searcheth negligently and coldly or as hath not a sufficient capacity to understand the Scriptures he searcheth when perhaps it is in some difficult point wherein they are not so clear as if he should search the text of the Old Testament in the point delivered by St. Paul of the abrogating of Circumcision under the Gospel neither can any body be secure of his dis-engagement from all such letts of using a right judgment in searching § 60 2. Because however the Search or the Searcher prove there are other means and m diums by which is proved to men the truth of such doctrines and by which not bearing witness to a falsity one may discover himself to have made his search of Scripture amiss so often as he thinks it to contradict them Such mediums are Miracles and other mighty operations done by the power of the Holy Ghost upon which our Saviour Jo. 5.36 and elsewhere and S. Paul Rom. â—5