sit Antichristus was constantly held Affirmativé as appears by their Questions Disputed in their publick Acts and Commencements which are extant in Print I have heard it so held in Oxon many times between the Years 1624. and 1633. The first who publickly denied the Pope to be Antichrist in Oxon was my late Lord Arch-Bishop Doctor Sheldon The Doctor of the Chair Doctor Prideaux wondering at it said Quid mi fili negas Papam esse Antichristum Doctor Sheldon answered Etiam nego Doctor Prideaux replied Profectò multum tibi debet Pontifex Romanus nullus dubito quin pileo Cardinalitio te donabit After this Doctor Hammond (c) In his Paraphrase and Annotations on 2. Thess 2.3 4. and in his Book against Doctor Blondellus deny'd the Pope and affirmed Simon Magus to be Antichrist But which is much more the Church of England has in her (d) See our Homilies Printed Anno. 1633. pag. 38. of the first part of those Homilies and the Homily against the peril of Idolatry and Superstition in the 2. part of these Homilies ' pag. 11 12. c. Homilies confirm'd by Acts of Parliament and Convocation and Subscribed by all the Clergy and all Graduates in the Universities declared the Pope to be Antichrist And then I desire to know whether they be true and Obedient Sons of the Church of England who publickly deny her Established Doctrine which they had before publickly Subscribed But if this be granted that the Pope is Antichrist then the Second Query will be whether the Church of Rome under him can be a true Church And in what sense she can be called so In answer to which Queries I shall crave leave to say 1. It is certain that the Seat of Antichrist shall not be amongst Pagans Jews or Turks but in the (e) 2. Thâ—ss 2.4 Temple of God that is even as (f) In Templo Dei. id est iâ— Ecclesia Dei Ecclesias occupalâ—it Hen. Helden Doctor Sorbâ—nicus in locum our Adversaries expound it in the Church of God the Christian Church and amongst Christians It is certain also and confessed by our Adversaries even the Jesuits (g) Jacobus Tirinus Stephanus Mâ—nochius in their Commentaries on Rev. 17.11 16 28. and on Rev. 18.4 themselves that Rome is the Mystical Babylon which is the seat of Antichrist though as they are highly concerned they would not have Rome at present to be the seat of Antichrist (h) As Doctor Hammond without any and against all Reason saith in his Annotations on Rev. 18.2 but say that he is not yet come or it must be Pagan Rome which is meant 2. But let Babylon or the seat of Antichrist be what Christian Church they will and some Christian Church it muâ—t be it is evident from the Text that God had a true Church even in Babylon in the Kingdom and under the Jurisdiction of Antichrist For speaking of Babylon or the seat and Kingdom of Antichrist God commands by his Angel (i) Rev. 18.4 come out of her my People lest you be partakers of her sins and Plagues God had his People his Elect as the Jesuits (k) Electos suos ut è Babylone exeant admonet Stephanus Menochius in locum expound it a Church of his Servants even in Babylon For it had been impossible to call any of his People out of Babylon if none of them had been in it That People of God was in Babylon in the Antichristian Church or Synagogue but not of it they dwelt in Babylon and had external Communion with Antichrist and his followers but did not Communicate with them in their Sins and Antichristianism for then they could not have been what he who best knows calls them His People so that we may truly say that in the Kingdom of Antichrist even in Babylon it self there are two Churches 1. One visible consisting of Antichrist and those who adhered to him and this is not a true Church of Christ but the Synagogue of Antichrist 2. Another invisible consisting of the People of God who kept themselves from Antichristianism and this was a true Christian Church So in the Church of the Jews after Jeroboam had set up his Calves at Dan and Bethel and the Idolatrous Worship of those Calves was Established by Law and generaly received by the People There were two Churches in the ten Tribes 1. One visible consisting of all those who obey'd Jeroboam and received and practised that Idolatrous way of Worship he had set up 2. The other Invisible consisting of those 7000 who had not bowed (l) 1. Kings 19.18 Rom. 11.4 their knees to Baal These I call the invisible Church because though their persons as Men were as visible as the Idolatrous Worshippers of Baal yet their piâ—ty and rejecting that Idolatry which was by publick Authority of their Kings Authorised and set up and by the generality of the ten Tribes received and practised this was so far from being visible and known to others that Elijah the Prophet who lived amongst them and was a Prophet sent to the ten Tribes knew it not but thought that he (m) 1. Kings 19.10 14. Rom. 11.3 only remained a true Servant of God free from that Idolatry which Jeroboam had set up and the ten Tribes did generally practise Now this invisible Church of the Jews consisting of those 7000 it is numerus finitus pro infinito a definite for an indefinite number who had not polluted themselves with Idolatry were the true Church (n) Rom. 11.1 2 4 5. Rom. 9.27 of God in the ten Tribes and owned by him as his People But that which I called the Visible Church of the ten Tribes who professed and practised the Worship of the Calves set up by Jeroboam this was no true but an Idolatrous Church To bring this home to our present purpose 3. That the Church of Rome as it has for some Centuries last pass'd and still does lye under that fatal (d) 2 Thes 2.3 and 1 Tim. 4.1 2 3. where we have two signal characters of that Apostacy and Antichrist the Author of it 1. Forbidding to Marry 2. To abstain from Meats which agree to that Roman Church evidently and to no other Church in the World Apostasie spoken of by St. Paul is very like the Church of the Ten Tribes after Jeroboam had set up Idolatry and caused them to sin For as that Church of the Ten Tribes was Idolatrous so the Church of Rome now is guilty of gross Superstition and stupid Idolatry This is not my opinion only all the Reformed Churches in Europe say the same particularly the Church of England as may and does evidently appear by her approved and authentick Writings established by the Supream Power of our Church and State attested by the Subscription of all her Clergy I mean our Homilies (a) See our Homilies Printed 1633 par 1. p. 36. in the 3d. part of the Sermon of good Works And the
but even by Sacred Writers and especially by Moses and the Prophets among whom therefore the Septuagint finding the Hebrew words Katial and Heda to denote a Civil Convention did interpret them by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And moreover the word Ecclesia is used more than once in the New Testament for such a Convention So in the 19th of the Acts when Demetrius the Silver-smith had stirred up the People against St. Paul that tumultuary Concourse of the People is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see verses the 32d 39th 40th But of a Church as it signifies such a Convention we do not dispute But Secondly Ecclesia is taken more especially not for every Caetus but for a certain Company of certain Men call'd by God and his holy Spirit out of the rest of the dreggs of Mankind and this is the most usual interpretation of the word in the New Testament And tho' there hath been a long Custom of calling Christians by the name of Ecclesia and Jews by that of Synagoga yet the Ancients did call them otherwise For the 70 Interpreters do 70 times apply the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Jews and Synagoga not so often But we enquire not here of the Jewish Church of Synagogue but concerning the Christian Church only and that is twofold First Invisible As both the Reform'd and the Romanists use to speak Secondly Visible First the Church Invisible is a Company of Men call'd not only by the external Preaching of the Gospel but the internal working of the Spirit and this is call'd Christ's Mystical Body Col. 1.24 And concerning the Church in this sense we do not here speak as if the Church invisible had any Authority in Controversies of Faith For First No Company of Men can be said to have any Authority which they neither do nor can exercise For in vain is Authority given to any multitudes of Men if it be impossible they should meet and ordain any thing Authoritatively But 't is impossible that the invisible Church of Christ that is to say Christs Mystical Body should meet since ordinarily and without some special divine Revelation 't is impossible that any Man should know who are truly Godly and planted into Christ Since therefore the Members of the invisible Church do not mutually know each other it is impossible that they should deliberately meet and ordain any thing Secondly It belongs to Authority to bind some men to be obedient But the invisible Church can oblige none to obedience since it is impossible that any man should justly be obliged to obey him that he is in a constant incapacity of knowing We do not here therefore make any Question about the Church invisible and confine it only to the Church visible And all do agree that the Church visible that is the Congregation of faithful Men who have given their Names to Christ hath Authority in Controversies of Faith All do admit the Authority of this Church in Thesi but many do doubt of it in Hypothesi and do dispute 1. Concerning the Subject thereof 2. of the Modus and Measure First there is a Dispute about the Subject of this Authority in whom it is to be found whether in a Pope or general Council or in both or whether in a Council of Bishops only or whether inferiour Clergy-Men are to be in the number of the Council and partake of its Authority or whether this Authority be only vested in Clergy-men and be not Communicated to Lay-men So that in Synods Lay-men may have Authority as at Geneva or whether this Authority be not originally in the People for so some have said that all Civil and Ecclesiastical Authorriry is originally in them Secondly 't is disputed about the modus and measure of this Authority which is attributed to the Church whether it be the Authority of a Witness or of a Judge directive only or coactive The more Modern sort of Papists especially the Jesuites do ascribe to the Pope supream and infallible Authority in determining matters of Faith as out of Baronius Suarez Bellarmine might be clearly shewn Now here we further say that the Visible Church doth occur under a double Notion First as it is taken collectively for all Christians comprehended in the visible Church whether Pastors or Sheep Clergy or Layety and so we deny that it hath this Authority Because what is in the hands of the Clergy to whom alone all Spiritual Authority is consign'd by Christ cannot be transferr d to others Secondly the Church is taken representatively for the sitting of Bishops in Councils and Synods which Nation of the Church is not to be found in Holy Writ For although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be found in the Old Testament as Translated by the 70 Interpreters and in the New Testament by a just account about 88 times yet it never signifies the Church assembled in a representative Synod as is manifest But this signification is introduc'd by Ecclesiastical use and custom Yet here we say that this Church hath the Authority not only of a Teacher but of a Judge First This Church doth Authoritatively Teach Secondly Judge Thirdly Command Fourthly Punish those who disobey Yet I do not say that the Church hath any Coactive power properly so call'd so as foro externo delinquentes ad obedientiam Cogere either by Imprisonment or pecuniary mulcts the ordering whereof belongs to the Civil Magistrate But tho' the Church cannot compell Men in foro externo it may in foro interno 1. ligando peccatorem 2. excommunicando So that here the Church shall be a Judge as well as a Teacher In the next place we say that the Church is a Judge and the judgment of matters of Faith is twofold First Private Secondly Publick As to the First Every private Christian hath the judgment of matters of Faith 1 Thes 5.21 Private Christians are to prove all things and hold fast that which is good And 1 Cor. 14.29 1 John 4.1 may be consulted for this purpose But Secondly there is a publick judgement and this properly belongs to the Church The Reason is because Pastors of Churches judge not only for their selves judicio privato but judge for all by a publick judgment And therefore the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews c. 13. v. 1. obligeth us to obey those that are set over us for they which for our Souls in the Lord. But further we say that this publick judgment of the Church is not what the Papists assert with relation to General Councils For First there was a time when there was no general Council namely for the first 300 years after Christ And Secondly those Councils are not infallible for if they were so they would be infallible either 1st Ratione partium but all parts of Councils are fallible or Secondly in respect of some Gospel-Promise made concerning the un-erring of General Councils But concerning any such promise in Scripture there
Petri Bertii Guil. Twissi Thom. Jacksonii c. Scripta quibus penè omnibus de questionibus praedictis earumve aliquâ Hommius Twissus contra reliqui pro Arminio fuse disputant 22. Animadversions on a Treatise Intituled Gods love to Mankind by John Davenant Bishop of Salisbury Cambridge 1641. 23. Determinatio Quaestionum per eundem Fol. ubi variâ— Arminianorum placita solide more suo ventilat erat enim ingenii Scholastici vir judicii subacti perspicui Synodo Doâ— dracenae praesens interfuit controversiis hâ—sâ—â— verâ—atissimus adeo ut inter nostrates superioreâ—â— nullum habuit forte nec aequalem 24. Examen thesium Franc. Gomari de predâ—â—â—atione per Jac. Arminium Anno 1645. Octâ—â—â— 25. Andreae Riveti Epistolae Apologeticae contra Mos Amyraldum de gratiâ Universali 1648. Octavo 26. Frederici Spanhemii Epistola ad Cattierium de gratia Vniversali 1648. 27. Mosis Amyraldi specimen animadversionum adversus Spanhemium de Gratia Universali 28. Georg. Vellei ad Pamphilium Continium de specimine animadversionum Mosis Amyraldi Judicium 1649. Octavo 29. Johan Dallaei Apologia pro duabus Ecclesiarum in Gallia protestantium Synodis nationalibus adversus Fred. Spanhemii exercitationes de Gratia Vniversali 1655. Octavo 30. Fidei Mosis Amyraldi circa errores Arminianorum declaratio An. 1646. Octavo 31. Dissertationes duae prima de morte Christi quatenus ad omnes extendatur secunda de Predestinatione Reprobatione per Joh. Davenantium Episcopum nuper Salisburiensem Cantabr 1650. Fol. 32. Joh Gerrardi Vossii Historia Pelagiana Quarto 33. Joh. Peltii harmonia Remonstrantium Socinianorum 1633. Quarto 34 Questiones hae passim occurrunt ventilatae apud Lutheranos eorum precipui sunt Gerrardus locis Communibus Chemnitius in examine Concil Trid. Brochmannus in Systemate Theologiae Eckardus Pandectis controversiarum Religionis qui Remonstrantibus Arminio favent Calvinus suique sequaces Calvinistae ex adverso stant ut passim videre est apud Calvinum Institutionibus Bezam in Rom. 9. Henricum Altingium Io. 1. 2. Scriptorum Theologicorum Paulum Ferrium vindiciis Scholasticè Orthodoxè Perkinsium c. 35. Inter Pontificios Jesuitae pro Arminio Domicani contra militant Ideoque Suarez Alvarez reliquique presertim ubi de auxiliis Divinae gratiae Scriptitant consulendi sunt 36. Huc spectat celebris illa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 controversia tanto tempore Partium zelo in Galliis pridem agitata inter Jansenii Molinae sequaces quorum hi Arminio illi Calvino magis favent eorum Scripta adversaria omnia penè prostant Cognitu lectuque non indigna Having now endeavour'd to satisfie you with the Account of the Socinian and Arminian Tenets and Writers about the same I shall comply in the next place with your desire of having my Thoughts about the Genealogy in St. Matthew FOR the Genealogy Matth. 1. If you reckon from Abraham to David inclusivè there are fourteen Generations If from Solomon to Jechonias inclusivè you have also fourteen Generations But then if from thence to Christ our blessed Saviour inclusivè we have but thirteen Generations 1. 2. 3. 1. Abraham 1. Solomon 1. Salathiel 2. Isaac 2. Roboam 2. Zorobabel 3. Jacob. 3. Abia. 3. Abiud 4. Judas 4. Asa 4. Eliakim 5. Pharez 5. Josaphat 5. Azor. 6. Esrom 6. Joram 6. Sadoc 7. Aram. 7. Ozias 7. Achim 8. Aminadab 8. Joatham 8. Eliud 9. Naasson 9. Achaz 9. Eliazar 10. Saâ—mon 10. Ezekias 10. Matthan 11. Booz 11. Manasseh 11. Jacob. 12. Obed. 12. Amon. 12. Joseph 13. Jesse 13. Josias 13. Christus 14. David 14. Jechonias  To solve this doubt one Generation wanting it is confess'd that one Generation incuria Amanuensium is left out ver 11. For it is certain in the Old Testament 1. That Jehoahaz (a) 2 Chron. 36. v. 7. succeeded Josiah immediately but he Reigning only three months is omitted by Matthew 2. His Brother Jehojakim (b) ver 1. succeeded whom the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. His Son and next Successor was Jehojakim (c) ver 5. who is sometimes call'd Coniah (d) Jer. 22.24 and sometimes Jeconiah (e) 1 Chron. 3.16 as Matthew here calls him so that to supply this want of one Generation the Text should be read thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu Jehojachim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu Jehojachim c. so the Text agrees with the Genealogy in the Old Testament and the Generation wanting is supply'd and the Truth of the Text cleared which without such supply is not true For the Text as now we read it says That Josiah begaâ— Jeconiah and his Brethren about the time of the Babylonish Captivity whereas 1. Jeconiah was not Son of Josiah but his Grand-Child and Son of Jehojakim (f) 2 Chron. 36.8 2. Josiah was dead before the Captivity about eleven or twelve years and Jeconiah was towards nine years old when he was carried Captive to Babylon for he began (g) 2 Chron. 36. to Reign when he was eight years old and Reign d three Months and ten Days and therefore it was impossible Josiah should beget him about the time of the captivity who was then above eight years old and Josiah Dead eleven or twelve years before 3. And besides all this it is evident that some Antient (h) Vide N. Testamentum Graec. per Rob. Stephanum Paris 1550. where in the Margin 't is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vid. No. Testamentum Graece Lond. 1648. varias Lect. in Bibliis Polyglottis Tom. 6. Greek Copies had and read it so as appears by the various Readings noted in our Printed Greek Testaments and I have seen a Greek Testament Msc betwixt five and six hundred years old wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Text it self though it is evident that it was left out in many Copies long before even in the time of Epiphanius (i) Vid. Epiphanium ad versus Hereses Tom. 1. pag. 21 22. in the fourth Century who takes notice of it and endeavours though with great (k) Vid. Dion Petavii Notas ad Epiphanium Tom. 2. Notarum pag. 18 19. mistakes to solve the doubt This omission is not only in our Bibles but in the Popish Vulgar Latine even in those of Sixtus V. and Clement VIII which they call Authentick and of more Authority than the Originals When I have urged this to some of their Priests that their as they call it Authentick Latine Bible was false and call'd the Generations from Salathiel to our Blessed Saviour Fourteen when indeed they are but thirteen when upon examination they found it so they ask'd me if it was not so in our English Bibles I told them yes but we were not nor pretended to be Infallible But for them who constantly affirm the Pope and their Church to be Infallible and miscal us Hereticks because we will not
Concilio non intererant primò Episcopi â—â—â—vinciarum 94. Imperio Romano subjectarum Ita ex Provinciis Imperii 118. solum Provinciae 24. suos ibi habuere Episcopos Provinciae 94 non habuerunt 2. Nuâ—â—rovinâ—tarum Christianarum extra In perâ—â—â—â—â—â—num posâ—tarum Episcopi hic aderant Vâ—â—nti ex Aethiopia India Persia Scotia Hybernia c. 3. Concilium Ephesinum Aderant solum Episcopi 156. ut constat ex Graeca hujus Concilii Editione per (a) Vide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 99. Edita Heidelb Anno 1591. Hieronym Commolinum Heidelbergae Anno 1591. Quamvis (b) Caranza in Summa Conciliorum p. 297. Caranza Patres 200. Synodo hâc convenisse asserit Eundem Episcoporum numerum habet Codex Canonum Vetus Ecclesiae Romanae p. 101. De hoc Concilio ex Actorum ejus subscriptionum diligenti collatione constat 1. Nullum ex Provinciis extra Imperium Romanum Positis Episcopum ibidem adfuisse 2. Ex Provinciis sub Imperio Ditione Romana comprehensis sunt autem 118. ad minimum ut ex notitia Imperii Patet pauciores Provinciae ad hoc quam ad Nicenum Concilium Episcopos delegarunt 4. Concilium Chalcedonense In hoc convenerunt Episcopi 620. (a) Pet. Crab. Tom. 1. p. 736. Ekingerus in sua Conciliorum editiine p. 150. de quo notandum 1. Episcopi è Provinciis extra Imperium Romanum Positis nulli hic aderant 2. E Provinciis Imperii 118. Episcopi Provinciarum 46. (b) Codex Canonum Vetus Ecclesiae Rom. p. 137. solùm hic convenerunt ita ut è Provinciis Imperii 72. Episcopus ne unus quidem huic Synodo interfuit Synodo huic Episcopi nulli aderant Ex 1. Vniversa Italia exceptis Episcopi Romani legatis 2. Hispania 3. Gallia 4. Britannia 5. Hibernia 6. Germania 7. Hungaria 8. Polonia 9. Dania vel Suecia 10. Aethiopia 11. Indiis Vtrisque 12. Parthia 13. Persia 14. Scythia Dub. At inquies Concilium Nicenum Chalcedonense c. ab omnibus dicuntur Oecumenica Ergo c. Resp Dici poterant Oecumenica 1. Respectu Orbis Romani Imperii utpote à Caesare Convocata 2. Sed non respectu Orbis Christiani de quo hic quaeritur utpote nullius Imperio subditi à quo legitimè Convocari poterant Memorand To use all previous care and caution in the stating of the Question after this manner viz. 1. That by Councils we do not understand a Civil Senate or Politick Meeting sed Conventum Cleri 2. That whereas Councils are usually divided by Writers into Provincial National and General he should take notice that it is the last only that the Fathers do call Oecumenical that is a Council wherein the Bishops of the whole World do meet And that tho' it is to be granted that in some Councils most of the Bishops of the Romish Jurisdiction may have met yet that such Councils deserve to be call'd Conciliabula rather than Concilia And as for example in the Council of Trent only those who were call'd by the Bull of Paul the third met who were sworn Abettors of the Romish Doctrine And that certainly at the times of all those pretended General Councils meeting there were always Christians without the bounds of the Roman Empire which might have been and ought to have been call'd to the Councils Isa 46.6 I have appointed thee to be a Light to the Gentiles and a Saviour to the ends of the Earth And Christ gave his Apostles Authority to go over the whole World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature Theodoret gives Testimony to this in his Book De Curandis Graecorum affectibus Nostri illi Piscatores ac Publicani sutorque ille noster cunctis Gentibus Legem Evangelicam detulerunt Neque solum Romanos quique sub Romano vivunt imperio sed Scythas quoque ac Sauromatas Indos Aethiopos Persas Hircanos Britannos Cimmerios Germanos utque semel dicatur omne hominum genus Nationesque omnes induxerunt Crucifixi Leges accipere But since you are pleased to desire my thoughts about the sense in which Protestants allow that the Body and Blood of Christ is really present in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and are likewise desirous to know whether Papists do not on occasion sometimes slight and disobey their General Councils You may in the first place take notice that all sober Protestants admit and believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is in a sense really present in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper The Lutherans who hold Consubstantiation do yet believe that and so do the Calvinists too That there is a Substitution of Body and Blood in the place of the Bread and Wine nothing of the Symbols remaining they deny Some foolish Papists bring a place out of the 6th of St. John for Transubstantiation that makes nothing for it where Christ saith Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of God ye can have no life in you c. But this place indeed makes much against the Romanists For as to the eating of the Flesh of Christ being spoken of 't is confess'd by Bellarmine lib. 1. De Eucharistia cap. 1. that those words of St. John do not properly belong to the Sacrament but the Mystery of the Incarnation So Gabriel Cusanus Cajetan Tapper judge likewise For Christ speaking of the necessity of eating his Body and drinking his Blood must needs speak of something which was possible for certainly he laid no necessity on Men to do impossibilities but the Sacramental eating of his Body was not then possible when he spoke this For then there was no such Sacrament in the World Christ having then not instituted his last Supper And all Popish Writers do grant that Christ did not institute the Sacrament of his last Supper or Eucharist till a good while after So saith P. Joh. Martinex de Ripalda in Brevi Exposit Lit. Magistri Sent. L. 4. distinct 8. Assert 2. p. 601. Hoc Sacramentum inquit fuit institutum Nocte Passionis And then again secondly our Saviour in this 6th of St. John speaks of the Eating without which there was no spiritual life But without Sacramental eating there may be spiritual life as many of them who believed had that life wrought in them then And certainly all those holy Men who dy'd before our Saviour's Passion had spiritual life in them Therefore these expressions are not meant of a Sacramental eating but of a figurative a fiducial and spiritual eating by Faith Thirdly If Sacramental eating and drinking be here meant no Lay-Roman Catholick can then possibly be saved for Lay Roman Catholicks are sacrilegiously denied the Blood of Christ being denied the Cup. Lastly 'T will appear further from the Text it self that this eating was not opus Oris but Cordis So verse 35. I am the Bread of Life he that comes to me shall not hunger and he that believes on me shall not
Jesuit or no I cannot resolve you as to that Question Yet this is evident that his whole Book is a Defence of the Jesuits against the Jansenists and others who have writ against the Jesuits Morals and shews that the Jesuits are not to be tax'd for those Opinions as tho they were the first Authors of them when many Catholick Authors as he calls them Schoolmen and Casuists of great note held the same Opinions long before the Jesuits had a Being 2. When you ask of what Authority he is or a Quotation out of him you must know 1. That his Book was condemn'd at Paris by the Sorbon and the Form of their condemnation you have at the end of the Pragmaetique (a) Sanctio Pragmatica Caroli 7. Edita Paris 1666. pag. 1048. 1049. Sanction of Charles the VI. King of France 2. This Censure of the Sorbon is damn'd by no less man than Pope Alexander the VII in his (b) Vide Indicem Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri 7. jussu Editum Romae 1667. pag. 294. where you have that Bull. Bull dated at Rome 7 Cal. Julii Anno 1665. So that it seems Gyumenius was of no small esteem at Rome when the Pope does è Cathedra damn that Censure of the Sorbon which damn'd Guymenius his Book For the Words of the Bull are Nos motu proprio ex certa scientia nostra deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine prefatam Censuram damnamus c. So that it has no little Authority as it seems to Buckden Feb. 21. 1684. Your Affectionate Friend and Servant Tho. Lincoln A Letter about the Papists founding Doninion in Grace Sir I Received yours which was very welcome to me because yours I have this week been in a hurry of business it being Ordination week so till now I had no time with my Love and Service to return my thanks for your kind Letter and the Intelligence communicated in it My humble Service to the Earl of Anglesey who was pleas'd to send me a Copy of the Popes Letter to the French King to incourage and commend him for his impious and Barbarous Persecution of his poor Protestant Subjects I do believe it is true what was by the Earl Subscribed to the Popes Letter Testor hunc Papam esse praedecessoribus similem though some cry him up for his moderation For your Query whether the Papists affirm any where Quod Dominium fundatur in gratia I have here inclosed what I think is evidently true They do believe and in their Authentick Writings profess that Hereticks for denying some Articles of the Popish Faith forfeit all (a) This does evidently appear to omit all other proofs by the Lateran Council under Innocent III. Can. 3. and especially Cap. Ad abolendum 9. Cap. Excommunicamus 13. Extra de Hereticis Dominion and Right to any thing they possess and their life too And if this were not sufficient poor Hereticks in their sense of which number I am one and by God's assistance ever shall be do forfeit not only right to Temporal things here but to Heaven hereafter for they pronounce them eternally damn'd This is evident not only in the Writings of private persons but in their publick and most Authentick Records you know that erroneous and most impious Constitution of Pope Boniface the VIII received into the (b. Cap. Vnum Sanctum 1. De Majorit obedientia Extrab Commun Body of their Law Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae esse omninò de necessitate salutis And this is expresly confirmed by Pope Martin and the Council of Constance where they damn the contrary Opinion as an Error in Wickliff who said (c) Articulus 41. Inter Articulos Wicklefi in Concil Constant damnatos Non est de necessitate salutis credere Romanam Ecclesiam esse omnium supremam And to say no more Leo X. and his Lateran (d) Sess 11. Apud Binnium Tom. 9.155 Council approve and innovate that Constitution of Pope Boniface the III. I am Sir Buckden Dec. 24. 1685. Your Affectionate Friend and Servant T. L. The Substance of a Preface made by the Right Reverend Dr. Barlow Late Bishop of Lincoln to a Discourse concerning the Gunpowder-Treason and the Manner of its Discovery together with the Speech of King James the I. upon that occasion and a Relation of the Proceedings against those Conspirators containing their Examinations Tryals and Condemnations Reprinted 1679. To which are added by way of Appendix several Papers or Letters of Sir Everard Digby one of the Chief Criminals relating to the said Plot. OUR Reverend Author begins by telling us that the said Book was no new but an old approved Book Reprinted by the Counsel and Authority of some Pious and Learned men that 't is no lying Legend or Romance nor any unlicenc'd seditious Pamphlet but an Authentick History of an Impious and Monstrous Roman Catholick Conspiracy or of a Popish containing the Examination Tryal Evident Conviction and just Condemnation of those Popish-powder-Traytors Then proceeding to open the hainousness of the Attempt he tells us that it was a Villany so black and horrid and not only unchristian but so inhuman and barbarous as never had any Parallel in any Age or Nation Jewish Pagan or Turkish nor indeed adds he could have before the Invention of Gunpowder and the cursed Institution of the Order of Jesuits by the Fanatical maim'd Suoldier Ignatius Loyola the World being before both without such pernicious Instruments so set for such a mischief as Gunpowder and without any Order of men so impious as the Jesuits to approve or design and much less to attempt to execute a Villany so manifestly contrary to the Light of Reason and all Humanity as well as to Scripture and Revelation For tho he confesses it true that the Pope and his Party in these last 600 Years have murthered many thousand better Christians than themselves under the mistaken notion of Hereticks by Armies raised purposely and encouraged to such bloody and unchristian Executions as also by their more barbarous and inhumane Inquisitions and premeditated Assassinations as sufficiently appears by their own Authors For that an eminent Writer among which viz Math. Paris in Hen. III. ad annum 1234. pag. 395. tells us of an infinite number of Hereticks viz. Waldenses murthered that our own Arch-bishop Vsher proves out of their Authors that in the space of 36 Years in France only 104747 of the same Waldenses were cruelly slain upon the same account that Dr. Crackanthorp in his Book against the Arch-bishop of Spalata cap. 18. § 19. c. proves no less evidently by their own Historians that about 142990 of the same poor harmless people were in 60 years time murthered by the same bloody Party and in the same Countrey And tho to pass by a Cloud of other Witnesses a prudent and sober Roman Catholick viz. Father Paul of Venice Hist Council Trent 119 120 tells us first of 4000 Waldenses and then
a private Testimony in some particular inferiour Court of Justice but presented publickly first to their King and then to the rest of the World in print 7. And Lastly That they Witness against Persons that lived among them and whose daily Conversation they could not but know and be proper witnesses of and consequently that Protestants have no reason to doubt them to be really such Persons as by such Grave and Authentick Testimonies they are proved to be Upon consideration of which premises and of the Principles Persons and encouragements the Jesuits have to attempt the destruction of all Protestants both Princes and People the Advice of the Spanish Vniversities seems very reasonable to our Prefacer viz. That all persons ought to beware of them and avoid them to which he adds and to banish and chase them too out of all Protestant Countries for that as mournful experience has shewn 't is morally impossible Protestants should enjoy any secure peace or safety where any such restless encouraged and resolute Malicious Spirits are suffered to harbour But besides these encouragements peculiar to Jesuits there are more and greater encouragements still common to them and all of the Popish Communion to animate them to design and attempt the ruine and extirpation of all pretended Hereticks especially Protestants and their Religion whom they esteem the most dangerous Enemies of their mistaken and superstitious Novelties For that Pope Innocent III. with his General Council promised those Souldiers who taking up the Badge of the Cross to fight against and utterly to destroy all pretended Hereticks like so many Amalekites with Fire and Sword were therefore called Crusado's or Cruce signati the same (a) Council Lateran 4. Ann. 1215. Cap. 3. of Hereticks Priviledges before granted to those that went out against the Turk and Saracens to Re-Conquer the Holy-Land which were chiefly two viz. 1 The Pope and the Council granted them a plenary Pardon and Indulgence of all their Sins while they lived as appears in tâ—e Bull of Innocent III. given at Rome with the approbation of the Council the 19th of the Calends of January or the 13th of December inserted in a Collection of Bulls Printed at Lions 1655. pag. 88. and Sect. 17. page 89. Tom. 1. 2. They promise the said Crusadoes not only Heaven and its Glory but a greater portion in the rewards due to the Just than other Men as appears Ibid. in the same Bull. Where our R. Prefacer again intreats his Readers to consider the following particulars remarkable in the premises viz. 1. The Excellency of the Reward which is no less than Grace here and Glory hereafter 2. Who makes promise of all this viz. The Pope and a General Council by them received 3. The certainty they have of enjoying the effects of those promises which arise from the strong conceit they have of the Supream Authority and â—nfallibility of the Pope and Council who make them 4. That assurance they have that the Murthering of Hereticks is at least Innocent and Lawful because so glorious a Reward is proposed for it by such an Authority which they cannot think capable of so great an Error and Impiety as to promise Heaven to such Actions as deserve nothing but Hell and Damnation 5. That tho' many things are lawful which are not necessary no nor at all expedient neither in some peculiar places and circumstances yet this destroying of Hereticks with Fire and Sword is according to the Principles of Papists not only Lawful but a necessary duty which they cannot omitt to do when required upon pain of Excommunication and of being deliver'd to the Swords of them who will be more cruelly obedient than themselves as appears by the Decree of the said Pope Innocent and his above-named General Council See Council Later 4. Dict. Can. 3. Whereby all Governours whether Supream or Subordinate Ecclesiastical or Civil are obliged to take an Oath to cut off all Hereticks or at least all those that shall be mark'd out to them by the Church for such out of the places of their respective Dominions and Jurisdictsons and that if they did not speedily put his Christian and Dove-like Decree in execution upon the first admonition that their Subjects should be discharged by the Pope from all Obedience and their Dominions given away to them that should promise to be bloody enough to obey the Pope and that Decree to the fullest extent of severity as appears in the same Council Can. 3. So that by what has been said and proved our Prefacer affirms that it appears to him and as he supposes will to many others very plain that the Murthering of Protestant Princes and Subjects who are at Rome declared and reputed Hereticks is not only 1. A Lawful Action but a Necessary Duty in that Churches Opinion at least in some particular Cases and times tho' it justly appear to all others a Black and Damning Sin 2. And such a meritorious Duty deserves both Remission oâ— Sins here and increase of Glory â—fterwards 3. And that the Actors of such Holy Tragedies are assured not to be branded for Murders but to be Canonised for Glorious Martyrs in their Romish Calendar and perhaps honoured with Shrines and Incense in their Churches And how powerful incitements such Doctrines heartily belieâ—ed may be to those that believe them to the contriving or executing of all sorts of Vilany against Protestant â—rinces States and People he warmly tells us past times have been and unless Providence prevent future times may be Rueful witnesses But be it how it will he concludes that Gunpowder-Conspiracies or any other Traiterous and inhumane Methods of cutting off any Christians and much less Princes indictâ causâ can be no just means to obtain forgiveness of Sins or the Glorious Crown of Martyrdom that Traytors may be Murderers but can never be Martyrs and that such Hellish Actors as their Church encourages and pretends to sanctifie may be a Roman but can never be a Christian way to Glory whatever Gloss the Pope and his Party put upon such barbarous Exploits However 't is not to be question'd proceeds he but that those who are possess'd with a delusion strong enough to believe the Pope and Council's Infallibility as all Papists truly so called are obliged to do will always be disposed to design and attempt the destruction of all Hereticks and of Protestants above all whether Princes or People by Armies open War and Rebellion when they are strong enough or by private Conspiracies by Gun-powder Sword Poison or any other pernicious means whatsoever when they want a Military Power as he hopes they always will and that God will likewise as he has done hitherto continually detect and defeat all their private Plots tho' never so darkly contriv'd and surely laid and continue to his Church among us that protection and to its Enemies that confusion he has hitherto done and that he will not suffer us to be guilty of such ingratitude and stiffness in our
justification of Abraham the Father of the faithful and all his Sons are justified in his likeness The Works of the Ceremonia and Judicial Law were in his Justification excluded for there was then neither of those Laws But the Apostle in Rom. 3. doth exclude the works of the Moral Law in the Business of Justification Yet in ver 31. of that Chapter 't is said Do we then make void the Law through Faith God forbid Yea we establish the Law But now the Ceremonial Law is not established by Faith for it is abrogated Moreover others of those Writers tell us That our first Justification is by Faith but our second Justification is by Works But what they call by that Second is Sanctification and not Justification And some of them say we are justified by the Works of the Moral Law but not by those Works ' which go before Faith but those which follow it and spring out of it But we say That Believers sin afterward and so cannot be justified by any Works afterward Their Good Works after Faith are imperfect And if we should suppose they were not yet those Good Works which follow Faith cannot satisfie God for any sins committed before it And for one Sin committed before Faith God may justly condemn a Man though he be holy afterward For every man doth owe God full Obedience to the utmost of his power in every moment of his time See Pauli Testardi Synopsin naturae gratiae who acutely and well handles the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Thesi 194. Imperium pot stâ—tis Supremae non solâ—m civilia sed sacra Complectitur POtestas here is not taken for power in the Abstract but in the Concrete for the Person who hath this power vested in him Thus the word is used in Lucan Discubuere Reges Majorque Potestas Caesar adest So St. Austin useth it De verbis Domini in Matth. Serm. 6. Si aliud Imperator aliud Deus jubeat Major potestas est Deus So S. Paul takes it in the 13th of the Romans where the Persons are clearly brought in claiming obedience as the higher powers Now as to these Persons having power in things Sacred we are to consider things as Sacred in a double manner 1. Ex Naturâ suâ So God and every Person in the Trinity is Holy Not by the force of any Law or Institution but of themselves and their own Nature And of such Sacred things we do not speak 2. Some things are Sacred ex Instituto Divino So under the Law the Priests Tabernacle and first Fruits were Holy and things Consecrated to God 3. Some things are Sacred ex instituto humano and these are things which are not so in their own Nature but are so by the intervening of Authority And such things according to the Civil and Canon Law are 1. Tempora Sacra as dies fasti and solemn Seasons for some weighty Causes Consecrated to God 2. Holy places as Temples 3. Personae Sacrae as Ministers of the Gospel 4. Res Sacrae As Holy Vessels Vestments the Revenues of the Church and things Dedicated to God Things are said to be Sacred if they are separated from a Profane to a Sacred use So R. David Kimchi on Isa 56.2 Diem Sanctificare est à profanis usibus separare And the Holiness of any thing is effectively as from its productive Principle by the Action of him who did separate it from a profane use to the use of the Church and by giving it transferr'd his Propriety to God But formally it consists in the Habitude and Relation which it hath to God its Possessor and to Holy Uses namely of the Church and to Holy ends the Glory of God and good of Men. So that these things have no absolute or inherent Holiness in them but only a relative one Now we say that the Supreme Power doth intra ambitum suum take in these things This is proved by Grotius in a Book by him Writ for that purpose which may be consulted as likewise Hooker in the 8th Book of his Ecclesiastical Policy and Paraeus on the 13th of the Romans And here we affirm first that Sacra Tempora are subject to the higher Powers But Times are Holy in respect either of Divine or Humane Institution 1. Of Divine as the Sabbath and such Days were appointed by God under the Old Testament And the Magistrate had no power to alter such Times nor suffer any so to do This is clear out of Eusebius on the Life of Constantine the Great the Theodosian Code and the Novels And so as to other Festivals The Maccabees made some solemn Festivals to be observed At the Observation of which Christ was present St. John 10.22 And as to things given to God they cannot be alienated The expression of giving things to God is used 1 Chron. 29. And in the Charters where the Religious use of things is specify'd the Style is Concessimus Deo Now the propriety by such Donations is in a special manner transmitted to God So Sacerdos is call'd in Scripture a Man of God And the Temple set apart for him the House of God And Christ calls it so My House is called the House of Prayer And the Sabbath is called the Lord's Sabbath the first Day of the Week the Lord's Day The Propriety is according to all Laws transfer'd to the Donatarius See for this the 167th Rule of Law in the Digests de Regulis Juris non videntur data quae eo tempore quo dantur accipientis non â—iunt And here we say that the Chief Magistrate hath no power to alter things wherein God is the Proprietary Quod meum est sine facto meo ad alium transferri non potest saith the Rule of Law But yet we say that Imperium potestatis supremae sacras personas actiones sacras Complectitur For First Sacred Persons may be considered as Members of the Commonwealth and so they are all subject to the higher Powers And Secondly As Members of a Church and so they are subject too to those Powers even in Ecclesiastical things However the Papists deny this to prop up the Supreme power of their Popes But here we must consider that in Ecclesiastical Persons there is a twofold Power 1. The Power of Order which by their Function they have to Preach God's Word Administer the Sacraments and confer Orders And this Power is wholly Spiritual and derived to Holy Persons from Christ independently on any Secular Power This Power Christ gave to his Apostles and they to others whether Secular Powers would or no So that the Secular Magistrate cannot be said to Confer this Power nor to exercise the proper Acts of it Nor can he Ordain a Presbyter or give the Sacrament But yet even as to this Power Sacred Persons may be said thus Magistratui subjacere First As he may compel them to do their Duties and to execute their Spiritual Functions if they are remiss Secondly As
of God as was Aaron Now this is to be meant of every Priesthood and not only of the Levitical one For Christs Priesthood was no Levitical one yet he was call'd to it But they will say no Man is now called as Aaron was and therefore by that Rule there should be now no Priest For no Man is now called immediately by God as Aaron was I Answer those words Sicut Aaron do note the Principium vocationis respectu Substantiae namely that every calling that was Lawful should be made by God as the calling of Aaron was not in respect of the manner of the calling in every Circumstance For First Christ himself was not so called Secondly Not every Successour of Aaron was so call'd For it is manifest that his Successours had not an immediate call from God as he had Thus therefore the place may be understood As the Successours of Aaron were call'd as truly by God as Aaron was so the Ministers of the Gospel at this day are call'd by God as truly as the Apostles were though they are not call'd immediately by God as were the Apostles Moreover Ministers are stiled the Embassadours of Christ and therefore must have a call to that Office And it is impossible that all Men should be Embassadours For to whom should they be sent An 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sit licita A Thing is said to be Lawful two ways First Ex imperio Legis mandato and so that may be said to be Lawful which is Commanded as to Love God and our Neighbour c. Secondly Ex permissa legis So that is Lawful which is not prohibited The Stoicks were of Opinion that they were permitted by Law to kill themselves as appears out of the Writings of Seneca and Epictetus They look'd on Life as a banquet from which any Man might rise when he had his fill and go his way Nor is killing one's self held absolutely Unlawful by the Canon Law For thus we have it in Gratian Decr. part 2. cauâ— 23. Q. 5. Can. placuit Placuit ut qui sibi ipsis vo untariè quolibet modo mortem violentam inferrent nulla prorsus pro ipsis in oblatione Commemoratio fiat neque cum Psalmis eorum Cadavera ad sepulturam deducantur For this was by way of punishment imposed on them Canone 34. Concilii Bacharensis from whence Gratian borrow'd it But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not in all Cases held unlawful by Gratian. For thus he tells us there Canone non est nostrum and referring to Hierom on the 1. Chapter of Jonah Non est nostrum mortem arripere sed allatam ab aliis libenter ferre Vnde in Persecutionibus non licet propriâ perire manu absque eo ubi Castitas periclitatur sed percutienti colla submittere By the Civil Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is forbidden L. Siquis ff De poenis § miles Miles qui sibi manus intulit nec factum peregit nisi impatientiâ doloris aut morbi luctusve alicujus vel aliâ causâ fecerit capite pumendus est Alià s cum ignominiâ mittendus est So that the endeavour to kill one's self is punishable by the Civil Law But in the next place I shall say that the Question is not whether Killing one's self be forbidden by the positive Laws of God and Man but whether it be intrinsically evil as forbidden by the Law of Nature as well as Scripture And first we say 't is forbidden by the Law of God Gen. 9.5 6. And surely your blood of your Lives will I require at the hand of every Beast will I require it and at the hand of Man c. whoso sheddeth Man's Blood by Man shall his Blood be shed c. So that Homicide is only lawful for those who are vested with Authority And all Men are either Subjects or such who have Supream Authority But to neither of these is power granted to Kill themselves First Not to Subjects For the power of Life and Death is vested alone in the Chief Magistrate and that Men should be subjects and entrusted with the jus vitae necis are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Subjects cannot justly Kill another Therefore à fortiori they cannot Kill themselves Thou mayest not Kill thy Brother because Natural Charity doth oblige thee to Love him But the same Charity doth oblige thee more strongly to Love thy self For the Law of Nature and right Reason permit thee to take away thy Brother's Life while thou dost necessarily defend thy own But Thirdly We say that the Supream Magistrate hath not power to kill himself He hath the power of Life and Death over his Subjects but not over himself For dominans and is in quem dominatur are relata and dominium is the relation between those terms And it is naturally impossible that one and the same person should supply the place of the relatum and Correlatum and be dominans and Dominatus ille qui habet ille in quem habet Authoritatem especially since the party governing must needs be supposed to have an Authority over the party governed And so it is absurd that one and the same person should be superiour and inferiour to himself and yet be subject to himself But Fourthly We say that no case can happen in which any Man can be supposed to have Authority to kill himself For at the time that any one doth violence to himself either he is innocent or guilty of Death If a Man be innocent then no power no not the Supream can justly put him to Death If he be guilty of Death he may be kill'd but not by himself For who Constituted him a Judge thus over himself Let him shew his diploma for any such authority Moreover Natural Reason doth not allow that any one Man should be Judge Witness and Executioner But further in the next place that Self-killing is not lawful may be thus proved Quod meum non est eousque quo meum non est usurpare vel de co diâ—ponere non possum sine consensu ejus cujus interest But my Life is not ex asse and absolutely my own For according to Tully partem parentes in me vendicant The Commonwealth and whoever is Supreme in it have a concern in the Lives and Fortunes of their Subjects Interest Reipublicae ne quis re suâ malè utatur and especially his Life Aristotle therefore in the 5th Book of his Ethicks cap. 11. observes that by Self-homicide Men injure the Common-wealth and therefore no marvel that Punishments are appointed to deter men from it We are in this Life as in an Army and must not forsake the Camp without allowance from our General You may consult on this Subject Bartholinus Salon and Ludovicus Molina de Justitiâ jure Tract de homicidio and Balthasar Gomesius Juris-consultus-Toletanus Omne Mendacium est peccatum EVery one hath heard of the common distinction of Lies and the Socinians affirm that mendacium