Homily against the peril of Idolatry in the second Tome of our Homilies p. 11 12 c. our (b) See the last Rubrick at the end of the Communion in our present Liturgy and we have the same Rubrick in the same place in the second Liturgy of E. 6. Printed Anno 1552. Liturgy c. to which we may add the Canons of the Convocation in the year 1640. which however not confirm'd by Parliament yet by them 't is evident that the Clergy met in that National Synod declared Rome to be Idolatrous and grosly Superstitious in the seventh Canon And the truth of this were it the business of this Letter might evidently appear to omit other things by that adoration their Church gives to the Eucharistical (c) Vid. Concil Trident. Sess 13. de Eucharistia cap 5. Host after Consecration in the Sacrament and to the Cross (d) Vid. Pontificale Romanum Romae 1611. pag. 480. de ordine accipiend procession for to both these they give Latria which they themselves confess is due to God only and therefore must of necessity be gross Idolatry 4. And as the Church of the Jews in the ten Tribes and the Church of Rome now agree in this that the one was and the other is Idolatrous so as in the Church of the ten Tribes there were 7000 who kept themselves pure from Idolatry even then when Idolatry under Jeroboam and his Successors was the publick and received worship So in the Church of Rome now I doubt not but there may be and are many more thousands who in Spain Italy c. live in the Church of Rome and in external communion with it and yet do not communicate with her in her Idolatry and Antichristianism And these not only I but all Protestant Divines generally call the Invisible and true Church of Christ known to him though not appearing to the World to be such But for the Visible Church of Rome That is the Pope and his Adherents Clergy and Laity who acknowledge him Christs Vicar and Supream Head of the whole Christian Church who believe and profess the whole Doctrine of the Roman (e) The Popish Doctrine in which Popery property consists as it is different from truth and the â—hurch of England is summarily comprehended in their new Tâ—ent Creed published by Pope Pius 4. and is in some Editions of the Tâ—ent Council at the end of that Council So in the Edition of the Trent Council by Labbe Paris 1667. p. 224 225. in other Editions it is put into the Body of the Council So in the Edition of that Council at Antwerp 1633. we have that Creed Sess 24. de reformatione p. 450 451. in which Creed we have 12. new Articles comprehending their Popish Doctrine propâ—rly so called added to the ancient Creed of Constantinople which we receive and is the Creed used by our Church at the Communion Church and practise the Superstitious and Idolatrous ways of Worship approved and received by that Church these are no true Church of God but an Idolatrous and Antichristian Synagogue Objectio But it may be said that Protestant Divines generally say that Salvation may be had in the Church of Rome and therefore it seems to be a true Church of Christ a true Christian Church and therefore it cannot be an Idolatrous and Antichristian Synagogue in which no Salvation can possibly be had And therefore some of our Divines as Mr. Thorndike deny the Church of Rome to be Idolatrous others which I shall not name say that she is guilty of Material but not Formal Idolatry Solutio To this Objection I say in short 1. That 't is true our learned and pious Divines do usually grant that Salvation may be had in the Church of Rome 2. For what Mr. Thorndike in his Weights and Measures has said That the Church of Rome is not guilty of Idolatry it is only gratis dictum but no way proved And besides he denies that truth which the Church of England had affirm'd and he himself subscribed 3. For those who talk of Material Idolatry it is absolute non-sense For although in actual sins of Commission as in Idolatry Murther Adultery c. there be materiale peccati the act it self and formale peccati the obliquity of that act yet forma dat nomen esse there neither is nor can be any Idolatry Murder or Adultery without the form and obliquity of those Acts. So in a Man the Body is materiale Hominis and the Soul is formalis pars But no Man ever called a Dead Corps though it be Materialis pars the material part a Material Man it being evident that a Dead Corps is no Man at all So to call the Act which is the material part of Idolatry Material Idolatry is not sense for without the obliquity of the act which is the form 't is no Idolatry at all 4. When Protestant Divines say that Salvation may be had in the Church of Rome their meaning neither is nor without they deny their own Principles can be that those who live and dye in the Profession and Practice of the Popish Religion can be saved They say and prove that Popery is such a Mass of Errors Superstition and abominable Idolatry as cannot consist with Salvation For (a) 1 Cor. 6.9 Rev. 21.8 Idolatry (b) Rev. 14.9 10. Antichristianism were declared to be damnable when till Death persisted in But they say as there were seven thousand in the Idolatrous Church of the Ten Tribes who kept themselves from the pollution of Idols So they doubt not but there may be in the Church of Rome in the external Communion of that Church many thousands For the opinion of Protestant Divines concerniâ—g Salvation of Papists s e Mr. Chillingworth's answer to the Jesuit Father Knott cap. 7 8 17 c. p. 397 c. and Dr. Featly's Defence of Sir Humphrey Iâ—nds Vâ—a recta Lond. 1638. p. 148. in Alphabeto 3. Iâ—â—ius libri who by the Grace of God are kept from Communicating with that Church in her Idolatry and Antichristianism And these may obtain Salvation 5. They say that there are two things which may be to some who live in the Communion of the Church of Rome helps and remedies to serve them against the pernicious effects of Popery so that although it be in it self damnable yet it shall not be so to them And those helps are 1. True Repentance for that is Secunda Tabula post naufragium so that if they truely repent as I hope many of that Church does though they do not profess it and really forsake their Popish Superstitions and Idolatry they shall surely find pardon for their former sins which shall * Ezek. 33.15 16. never be laid to their charge and so for our Blessed Saviour's sake Salvation But unless they keep themselves pure from those pollutions or if not sincerely repent they neither have nor can have any well grounded hope or possibility to attain
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
and so the Doctrine it self have the approbation of those who are publickly authoris'd by the Roman Church to examine them 3. But what is much more which you well observe this Doctrine of Burning Cities with the Hereticks in them is expresly approved and taught in the Body of their Canon Law in Gratian's Decretum to say nothing of the Decretals and before him in Juo Carnotensis and before him in Burchardus Wormatiensis It is also registred for Law by the Author of their Pannormia Pannomia he would have said had he understood any Greek I need not cite the places because they are (a) In the Corpus Juris Canonici Paris 1612. ad Can. si audieris 32. c. The places in Burchardus Juo and the Pannonia are quoted in the Margent cited in the Body of the Law it self Now it will be evident 1. That this Law of firing whole Cities to consume Hereticks has been by the Church of Rome publickly receiv'd for Law almost for 700 (b) Burchardus flourish'd Anno. 1010. Bellarmine de Script Ecclesiast in Burchardo years last past and that without any contradiction as to this Canon we are now speaking of I find indeed that Thomas Manrique Master of the Sacred Palace at Rome almost an hundred years ago (a) Censura in Glossas Jur. Canonici ex Archetypo Rom. Coloniae 157â— censured many of the â—losseâ— of the Canon Law and he might have justly censur'd many more but he does not at all censure the Gloss (b) Glossa ad dictum Canonem verbo Omnes qui. of this Canon si Audieris we are speaking of which contains the sense of the Canon in short and therefore 't is evident that he did not dislike the Canon it self nor the burning an Heretical City though some Catholicks were consum'd in it 2. But after this in the (c) Vide Gregorii 13. Bullam datam Romae Anno. 1580. Juri Canonico praesixam year 1580. Gregory 13. appointed some Cardinals aliosque Doctrinâ pietate insignes as he tells us in his Bull to review the whole Body of their Law both the Text and Gloss and purge it from all faults and errors And Bellarmine says this was effectually done (d) Bellarmin de Scriptor Ecclesiast in Gratiano ad Annum 1145. Hoc opus a mendis purgatum suae INTEGRITATI RESTITVTVM FVIT â Viris quibusdam eruditissimis authoritate Gregorii 13. And the Pope himself in the said Bull tells us That the whole work was committed to the Master of the Sacred â—alace Recognoscendum approbandum and then as it follows in the said Bull the Pope ex plenitudine potestatis Apostolicae confirms all this and commands all Catholicks to receive this incorrupt Edition of the Canon-Law by him publish'd tam in judicio quam extra judicium so as Nulli liceat quicquid addere detrahere aut immutare and if any disobey and (a) Contra inobedientes Rebelles etiam per censuras Ecclesiasticas etiam sapius aggravandas Invocato si opus fuerit auxilio brachii saecularis c. Ibidem in dicta Bullâ rebell as he calls it they are to be compell'd by Ecclesiastical Censures and if that will not do deliver'd over to the Secular Power and so to death Now as what is in our Canons of the Church of England being approv'd and and injoyn'd by the King our Supream Power and received in our Courts and common use may justly be imputed to the Church of England so the Popish Canons having been receiv'd as Law and practised and used as Law in their Courts and Consistories for almost 700 years and confirm'd by the express Constitution of the Supream and if the Canonists and Jesuites say true and Infallible Power of their Church I say on those grounds whatever Doctrine Burning Cities or any other is contain'd in those Canons may justly be imputed to that Church But that which is much more to our present purpose is That the believing and receiving the Sacred (b) Caetera omnia à SACRIS CANONIBVS aecumenicis Conciliis praecipue a Tridentinâ Synodo definita indubitanter recipio profiteor c. Hanc fidem Catholicam extra quam non est salus sponte profiteor eamque integram usque ad extremum vitae spiritum retinere c. Ego N. Spondeo Voveo Juro Vide Concil Trident. Antverp 1633. Sess 24. De Reformat in calce Cap. 12. Vbi extaâ— Bulla Pii 4. super forma professionis fidei Canons is made an Article of their new Trent-Creed and all their Ecclesiastiques Secular and Regular are to Promise Swear and Vow to profess and maintain them to their last breath 4. And when it is objected that their Canon Law was not received intirely in England or France and therefore all the extravagant Doctrines and Positions contain'd in it cannot be imputed to the Church of Rome In answer to this I say 1. That the Objection is inconsequent and a manifest non-sequitur For the errors of the Canon-Law may justly be imputed to the Church of Rome though England and France received it not because what the Pope the Supream Head of that Church and the far greater part of the Popish World do receive the Church receives Denominatio sequitur majorem partem 2. And that this is true that the Doctrines in the Canon-Law notwithstanding some may not receive them all are the Doctrines of the Church of Rome I have two Provincial Synods here in England expresly declaring it one at (a) Vide Concilia per Hen. Spelmannum Tom. 2. pag. 653. §. Nulius quoque Oxford another at (b) Apud eundem Spelman Ibidem Tom. 2. pag. 666. §. 9. London under Arch-Bishop Arundell in both which they declare That Articuli qui in Decretis aut Decretalibus continentur sunt Articuli terminati per ECCLESIAM the Church of Rome we may be sure they mean So that in the judgment of these two Provincial Councils the Canon-laws are the determinations and definitions of the Church of Rome and so whatever errors be in those Laws and Canons may justly be imputed to the Roman Church 3. The Canon-law was received Nulâ—us de Articulis termâ—nalis per Ecclesiam prout in Decretis in Decretâ—libus nisi ad habendum verum eorum intellectum dispâ—tare praesumat aut Authoritatem eorundem Decretorum aut Decretalium potestatemve condentis eadem in dubium revocet Paenas Haeresis relapsi incurrat c. here in England as is evident by the two Councils before cited and in the places cited It is certain that the Canon-laws were received both in England and France except where in some few things they clash'd with our Common or Statute Laws for then the Parliament would say Nolumus Leges Angliae mutari And so in France if they clash'd with the Liberties of the Gallican Church they would neither receive nor obey the Canons But if any can shew me
prophanare Vnde Sacerdos quantumcunque polluâ—â— existat divina non potest polluere Sacramenta quae purgatoria cunctorum pollutionum exiscunt The Sons of Eli the High Priest are called Sons of Belial and such as knew not the Lord 1 Sam. 2.12 yet 't is not to be doubted but that their Administration of the Holy things was useful and profitable to God's People Yet this we must say that though the sinfulness and prophaneness of Ministers cannot directè and per se make the Sacrament invalid it may indirectly and per accidens occasion the Sacraments not doing the People so much good as might otherwise have happened And thus the Sons of Eli 1 Sam. 2.17 are said to have made some abhor the offerings of the Lord and v. 24. to make the Lord's People transgress I shall now proceed to shew that the Validity of the Sacrament depends not on the intention of the Priest The Papists say first in general that the intention of the Priest is required And that Secondly By Intention they understand Voluntatem faciendi quod facit ecclesia Bellarmine takes a great deal of pains to clear this Tenet of the Church of Rome from absurdity But Omnia cum fecit Thaida Thais olet God as the King of all sends his Ministers of the Gospel as his Embassadors Now what matter is it what the Embassador intends if he delivers his King's Message well If a Man gives a Gift and sends it by another the intention of the Giver is only considered and not that of the Messenger But to urge the matter more closely if the efficacy of the Sacrament depends on the intention of the Priest then according to the Papists will it be in his power to deprive the People of that and even of Salvation it self And then again none but the Priests themselves can tell whether Idolatry be committed or no. For Papists are bound to â—orship the Consecrated Bread Cultu latâ—â—â— and they all grant that if after Consecration the Bread should not be Transubstanâ—â—ated they are gross Idolaters Now who can tell what the Priest intends in Consecration Moreover since Order is a Sacrament with the Romanists that they cannot know the intention of the Priest it must necessarily follow that instead of their being able to know that their Pope is Infallible they are not able to know that he is a Pope at all For he cannot be a Pope unless he was made a Bishop But whether he was ever made a Bishop or whether he or any else in the Câ—urch was ever Baptized and made a Christian none but the searcher of Hearts knows And so it must necessarily follow that all Papists while such must perpetuae incertitudinis vertigine acti in aeternum dubitare But so absurd is this Tenet of the intention of the Priest as essential to the validity of the Sacrament and the ill Consequences of it so very many that we are told it out of the History of the Council of Trent a Bishop in that Council Disputing largely against it the Historian saith of him Tantae erant rationes à se adductae ut caeteros Theologos in stuporem dederant Vide fis Historiam Tridentinam lib. 2. p. 276. Leidae â—editam Anno 1622. Of a Presbyterian Divine reporting publickly That Bishop Sandersoâ— died an Approver of that Sect and of a Paper attested by Bishop Barlow to the contrary and of the contrary likewise appearing out of Bishop Sanderson's last Will and Testâ—ment OF the shameful Calumnies of Papists in reporting that some of the Fathers of our Church died Papists though they had been the greatest Zealots against Popery an Instance is given by one who was a Convert from the Church of Rome to that of England and Authour of a Book call'd The Foot out of the Snare Printed at London Anno 1624. and where in pag. 18. he mentions how Dr. King Bishop of London in a Sermon on the 5th of November had represented the Jesuits and Jesuited Papists as notorious Architects of Fraud and Cousenage and saith that the Bishop spoke those words prophetically as by a kind of fore-instinct how he should in his memory suffer by their Forgeries the which he did by their lying Book called The Bishop of London's Legacy making him die a Papist and which Book as he saith was writ by one Musket a Jesuit and â—â—lates in p. 80. how a Priest of the Church of Rome told him He was sorry that ever their Superiors should suffer such a Book for that it would do the Romanists more hurt than any Book they ever wrote And he might well say so it being most true what the Lord Bacon said That Frost and Fraud have always foul ends And as Bishop King was thus in his Memory basely attacked by a Papist so our great Bishop Sanderâ—on was by a Presbyterian Divine who shall not be named out of honour to a Noble Lord his Patron And it is not to be doubted but that Dr. Sanderson who had been ordain'd Deacon and Priest by that Bishop King as Walton tells us in the Doctor 's Life had been sufficiently inform'd of that Popish Calumny design'd to blast Bishop King's Reputation and therefore Bishop Sanderson did take care that Posterity should be sufficiently apprised of the Faith he intended to live and die in by his giving the world a notification thereof in his last Will and Testament the which was by him perfected on the 6th day of January 1662. some few Weeks before his Death for he died on the 26th day of that Month and his Will was proved in the Prerâ—gative Court at London on the 28th of March 1663. The Witnesses Names to the Will are Josiah â—uâ—len Ja. Thornton Edw Foxley Bishop Barlow who since succeeded Bishop Sanderson in the Dioces of Lincoln did while he was Provost of Queens College in Oxford sign an Attestation of the factum of Bishop Sanderson's dying as he had lived a true Son of the Church of England and of a Presbiterian Divine calumniating him for the contrary and delivered the following Paper to the late Minister of Buckden for his information in the Matter of that Factum There was one of Bishop Sanderson's Sermons preach'd on this Text But in vain do they worship me teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men Mat. 15.9 This Posthumous Sermon was printed on this occasion Mr. Roswel B. of D. and Fellow of Christ Church College in Oxon meeting with Dr. Tho. Sanderson the Bishop's Son he shows him a Copy of this Sermon fairly writ with the Bishop's own hand Mr. Roswell read lik'd and desired it might be printed but the Dr. deny'd because the Bishop had commanded none of his Papers to be printed after his Death Mr. Reynel Fellow of C. Christi being in Lancashire found that a Presbyterian Minister had possessed many of that Country with a belief that Bishop Sanderson before his death repented of what he writ against the Presbyterians and on his death bed would
(c) Stat. 1. Mar. Sess 2. cap. 2. and again established (d) Vid Stat. 1. Eliz. cap. 2. by Queen Elizabeth with some alterations 1558. 4. Our Book of Ordination all these confirm'd by Parliament and Convocation and so by the Supream Power Ecclesiastical and Civil and so whatever is contained in those four Books which concerns either Doctrine or Discipline is Authentick and Obligatory to the whoâ—e Church and Nation and all persons whether Clergy or Laity This our Common Lawyers will admit and no more because as they would have it to diminish the Ecclesiastical and encrease their own Civil Power No more are confirm'd by Act of Parliament but we say and can prove (e) Vid. Mâ—c de Excommnicatione Câ—â—cellario missum 166. that there are other Books which are and de Jure should be as Authentique and Obligatory as the former four As 1. Our Ecclesiastical Canons made in Convocation 1. Jacobi 1603. 2. The Provincial Constitutions Quas Collegit Guil. Linwood erat primo (f) M. Parker Antiquit. Britan. in Guil. Câ—ichly p. 285. Officialis Curiae de Arcubus dein custos privatiâ— sigilli ac demumâ— Menevensis Episcopus Glossis Illustrare (g) â—a Linwood in Praesat Incepit 1423. perfecit (h) Vid. Glossam ad constitat Finaliter Verbo Râ—moto pa. 161. Col. 3. Edit Par. 1505. de Haereticis Lib. 5. Glossas illas circa Annum 1429. Constitutiones has cum erant in Synodis Provinciae Cantuariensis conditae Provinciam illiam solum obligasse Constitutiones Legatinae Othonis Othoboni erant Legati Pontificis in Anglia sub Hen. 3. cum Glosses Joh. de Aton Canonici Lincolniensis Notand 1. quod Guil. (i) In Gâ—â—◠〈◊〉 Verbo 〈…〉 â—xdâ—cto Linwood citat hunc Joh. de Aton Lâ—nwoodo erat antiquior 2. Constitutiones hâ—s Angl. Vniversam obligasse conditae enim erant in Conciliis (k) Vid. M. 〈◊〉 ad 〈◊〉 1237. in 〈◊〉 3. p. 446 447. ubi aderant utriusque Provinciae Episcopi Pontificio Legato Praeside Now all these Canons and Constitutions Provincial and Legantine and indeed the whole Canon Law is still in use in all our Ecclesiastical Courts and Obligatory so far as they are not inconsistent with 1. The Law of God 2. The Law of the Land or the Prerogative Royal as may appear by many statutes k not yet abrogated (l) Vid. Sâ—â— 2â— Hiâ— 8. â—â—p 19. â—â—â—ne which is â—â—nfirm'd 1 Eliz. cap. 1. Vid. Eâ—iâ—â— 2â— 35. Hâ—â— cap. 8. cap. 16. That the Doctrine and Discipline of our Church are Authentiquely contain'd in the foresaid Books Canons and Constitutions being certain and confess'd The next query will be how and by what means a young Divine may come to know the true sense and meaning of those Writings c. In answer to which Query with submission to better Judgments I say there can be no better means to know the true meaning of Articles Canons and Constitutions c. than by a diligent and intelligent reading the Works of those excellent Persons who ab origine contriv'd those authentique Writings ejusdem enim est exponere cujus est componere or since successively have defended them against all the Adversaries of our Church and Pope Presbyter and Phanatick and that with success and Victory I mean such as Cranmer Bucer (l) Buceri Scripta Anglicana praecipuè Basil 1577. Vâ—t Argentorati He was Reg Professor at Cambr. Pet. Martyr (m) He was Prâ—fessor of Theol. at Oxon Jewel Raynolds Whit-gift Bancroft Hooker Joh. White Davenant Abbot Crakanthorp Field Laud Chillingworth As for our late Writers or Scriblers rather to spend time in reading them is to mis-imploy and lose it and to speak freely many Apocryphal Pamphlets let him who likes them call them Books have been of late years Writ and Licensed which datâ operá ex professo endeavour to confute the establish'd and known Doctrine of our Church and all Reform'd Churches in Europe and maintain Positions which are evidently Socinian Popish or Pelagian whence we have too much ground to wonder why any Son of the Church of England for so these Scriblers call themselves dare Write or License such Apoc. Books which they are bound by Law and Conscience to condemn And as a Divine should and ought to know the Doctrine and Discipline of our Church that so he may be able to teach and vindicate it from the Cavils and Oppositions of our Adversaries so he ought to know what are the erroneous opinions of the Enemies of our Church especially the Papists for no man can confute what he does not know To Write against Rome and confute her for her Doctrines she does not hold is a calumny not a just confutation All that Lombard or Bellarmine or Vasquez or Cajetan hold is not presently to be laid to the charge of the Roman Church but such things as she by publick Authority owns in her Authentick Constitutions c. Popish errors then are either Fidei aut facti in credendis aut agendis such as concern their Doctrine and Discipline 1. For their Credenda and Errors in Doctrine they have declared authentickly 1. In their Trent (n) And so in all those Councils they call Oecumenical and approve tho we do not as the Nicene Council and about thirteen more which came after it whatever Errors be in any of these they do and must own for seeing they do approve those Councils they must approve their Positions and Decrees We have a Catalogue of what Councils the Church of Rome acknowledges prefix'd to the Corpus Juris Canonici Paris 1618. Fol. and to the last Edition of that Law Lugduni 1661. Quarto Council the best Edition at Antwerp 1633. Octavo of which before pag. 18. 3. 2. In the Chatechismus Tridentinus ex decreto Concil Trident. jussu Pii Papae 5. There are very many Editions but the best is that at Paris 1635. Octavo 3. In their Popes Bulls 1. Eccloge Bullarum Pii Quarti 5 ti Gregorii 13. Lugduni 1582. Octavo Item 2. Literae Apostolicae c. de officio Inquisitionis cum superiorum Approbatione Romae 1579. Fol. Extant hae Literae cum altarum Auctario in calce Directorii Inquisitionis per Nicol. Eimericum Ven. 1607. 3. Nova computatio Privilegiorum Apostolicorum Regularium mendicantium c. per Emman Rocherum Turnoni 1609. Fol. In which collection we have the Bulls of about 44 Popes 4. Bullarium Romanum Novissimum a Leone magno ad Vrbanum 8. Tom. 4. Fol. Romae 1638. Edidit Mar. Cherubinus extat editio hujus Bullarii alia posterior additis Vrbani Innocentii Constitutionibus auctior Lugduni sumptibus Phil. Borde c. This last Edition is best 1. Because it contains more Bulls 2. Because I find many things in this last Edition of Lyons which being damn'd by the Inquisitors are to be expung'd (o) 〈…〉 19. 〈…〉 â—â—gâ—um 〈…〉 〈…〉 Inâ—◠〈…〉 â—â—um Ib.
utterly denying the picturing of God the Father and yet they of Rome approve and practise it This Doctrine of Anti-transubstantiatioâ— is no new Doctrine crept into the World since Luther's time but the Antient Faith of the English and indeed of all Christendom long before the Conquest in the time of our Saxon Progenitors And so we find it in an Antient Homily writ originally in Latine but among many others translated into Saxon by Aelfricus Abbot of St. Albans in King Edgar's time Vid. Saxon. Homil die Sancto Paschae p. 35. That Homily was no private thing but commanded by Authority to be read in Churches on Easter-day where speaking of the Sacred Symbols in the Eucharist we are told that it is naturally corruptible Bread and Wine and is by might of God's Word truly Christ's Body and Blood yet not so bodily but ghostly And then there are divers differences put between Christ's Body in which he suffered and his Body in the Sacrament As first That was born of the Virgin Mary had flesh and blood But his ghostly or spiritual Body is gathered of many Corns without Bones Blood or Limb and without Soul therefore nothing to be understood therein bodily but all ghostly And a little after This Mystery speaking of the sacred Host is a pledge and figure Christ's Body is Truth it self This was the Antient Faith of the Church of England seven hundred years ago and 't is ours still If at or after the Lateran Council Transubstantiation and another new Doctrine was broach'd by the Tyranny of Rome and the slavish Credulity of some of our Predecessors let Roman Catholicks ingenuously tell us who are the Innovators But suppose a few persons believed so suppose any Fathers quoted for it were uncorrupt yet it doth not follow that because they believed so therefore the Christian World believed so And again suppose that the Major part of Fathers and Doctors of the Church were for such an Opinion I ask if this doth bind Posterity to be of their Faith I shall here shew you that tho' none pretend more to Antiquity than the Papists or make a greater noise with Fathers and Councils yet they slight them as much as any when they speak any thing against the sense of the present Church As for instance what I partly before hinted Cardinal Cajetan a very Learned Man in the beginning of his Commentaries on Genesis hath this passage Si quando occurrit novus sensus textui consonus quamvis à torrente Doctorum alienus â—quum se praebeat lector Censorem And a little after he adds Nullus detestetur novum Sacrae Scripturae sensum ex hoc quod dissonat à priscis Doctoribus Maldonat in cap. 6. Johannis that he might oppose Calvin confesseth which no Witness but my own Eyes could make me believe that he chose a new Interpretation on the place against all the Antients But in the next place to prove that Papists have sometimes gone against General Councils since you give me occasion further to dilate on what I before referr'd to by way of hint I shall tell you that the Canon of the great Council of (b) Concil Chalced. Can. 2. in Collect. Can. Graec. Lat. per Eliam Elingerum 29. In Cod. Can. Ecclesiae Vnivers per Christoph Justellum Chalcedon one of the four which Pope Gregory would have receiv'd tanquam quatuor Evangelia made by 630 Bishops confirm'd by the 6th General Council held at Constantinople And by that of (c) Conc. Constant in Tâ—ullo Can. 36. for so it is acknowledged tho' Binius and some o herâ— would fain deny it in the bâ—dy of the Canon Law C. râ—novaâ—â—es Dist 22. in the last and best Editions of it See Greg. 13. his Bull given at Rome July 1. 1580. Gratiano praefixum Constance too Sess 39. fol. 39. Edit Antiquae Mediolani 1511. is yet every where slighted by Popish Authors For Canon the 28th or as in some Editions the 29th Canon of Chalcedon is quite left out in that Edition of the Councils by P. Crab and in that of Dionysius Exiguus in the Vetus Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Romanae in Caranza c. And tho' Franciscus Longus (d) Summa Concillor per Francisc Longum à Coriolano p. 402. apud illum Can. 27. a Coriolano hath that Canon yet in his Annotations he flatly denies it and goes about to prove it false in divers particulars So that the Canonical determinations of 360 Fathers met in a General Council whose Constitutions their own (e) Extra De Renuntiationâ— cap. post Translationem Pope Gregory would have receiv'd as Evangelical Truths when they make against them signifie nothing but are flatly denied And if it be said that this was no Canon of the Council the contrary is manifestly true for it is in all the Original Greek Copies Printed and Manuscript (f) Videsis Cod. Canonum per Christoph Justellum Ecclesiae Vniversae Can. 206. p 25. Zonaram in Canon Concil p. 118. Theodorum Balsamon in Can. 28. Concil Chalcedon Can. Concilior Graec. Lat. Quarto An. 1560. per Andr. Gesnerum p. 48. Vid. Caranzam in Notis ad Marginem c. 36. Concil Constantinop p. 635. where he tells us that Canon is in the Greek Copies sed deest in Latinis exemplaribus and expresly confirm'd by the 36th Canon of the Sixth General Council at Constantinople Registred by Gratian Can. Renovantes Dist 22. tho' with insufferable falshood and corruption of the Canon as will manifestly appear to any who will compare Gratians reading with the Oriâ—inal (g) Vid. Vetus â—â—sc Syâ—â—â—icum in Biâ—l B â—leâ—â— iâ—â—er Mâ—c Gâ—â—â—ca è Mâ—s o Barociano I know they of Rome sliâ—ht this of â—onstantinople as much as that â—f Chaâ—cedon For first Binius tells us it smells more of ambition than truth and (h) Caranza in Aâ—not ad Can. 36. Conc â—ii 6. Gen. p. 635. Caranza â—rroneus a quibusdam existi â—â—ur hic Canon And Indeed iâ— is â—ecessâ—ry for them to deny that Canon for it positively asserts and determines such truths as utterly overthrow their Popes pretended Supremacy which they so much and so irrationally contend â—â—r For First that great General Council gives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not sâ—â— lia only as Gratian falsely reads it (a) Gratian Can. Renovantes dist 22. even in the last and best Edition of their Canon-â—aw equal Priviledges to New and Old Rome that is declared and pronounced Constantinople or the Patriarch of that Imperial City to have equal Priviledges with the Pope or Patriarch of old Rome Secondly That the Roman Bishop had not those Priviledges among other Bishops by any Divine right or succession from St. Peter as now they would pretend but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were given by ecclesiastical and positive constitution of the Fathers Thirdly And they to make this manifest tell us that Rome had those antient prerogatives not as its Bishop was St. Peter's Successor or with
Art Octavo Creed wherein we say and should believe that there is but one Eternal And if we had no Scripture yet Nature and the undoubted principles of our natural Reason tell us and efficaciously demonstrate that there can be but one Eternal For whatever is eternal of it self and without all beginning must of necessity be infinite for nothing can give finitude or bounds to it self and whatever is eternal cannot possibly have any thing before it to give it bounds and 't is more impossible that what is after it and temporal should give bounds to an Eternal Being so that if those Atoms be Eternal and Infinite as they must be if they be Eternal then they must be so many Deities or Gods for nothing but God can be Eternal and Infinite and then consider how many Gods we shall have even as many as there are of those Atomes Now he tells us p. 124. that perhaps a * In minimo corpusculo continentur multae Atomorum Myriades vid. Philosophiam Epicuri per Gassendum cap. 6. p. 39. Edit Londini Anno. 1660. Million of those Atomes do not make one corpusculum or visible body and then how many Millions must go to make up all the Corpuscula and corpora in the World will be a hard work for him or any body else to number He then who saith those Atomes are Eternal brings in a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a multiplicity of Gods and so denies the onely true God for more than one true God there cannot be 2. He says those Atomes have magnitude and motion pag. 17 18. which no Eternal and infinite thing is capable of as (b) Aristotle Metaphysicorum lib. 14. cap. 6. Natural Auscult lib. 8. cap. 15. Aristotle from natural principles has evidently proved But if he say and nothing else can be said that these Atomes are Temporary and had a beginning I ask when and by whom did they begin 1. It is said by him p. 17. that they were the FIRST MATTER of the World Ergo they must be before the World as the matter of an House must be before a House can be made of it but if Moses say true Gen. 1.1 In the beginning God Created the Heaven and the Earth c no mention of Atomes Heaven and Earth were created says Moses and all Jews and Christians say that was ex nihilo non ex Atomis aut materià ullâ praexistenti Sed apage nugas quae Christianum Philosophum non sapiunt sed Atheum aut Epicurum qui creationem ne virtute quidam divinâ (c) Vid. notam Gassendi ad calcem cap. 5. Syntagmatis Philosophiae Epicuri pag. 37. supra citat possibilem esse negabat sunt Apinae tricaeque si quid vilius istis quas referre pudet piget refellere I am troubled nor can I without some sorrow and impatience speak or think of it to see the Scepticism to say no worse which now securely reigns in our miserable Nation while some dare profess and publish irrational and wild Notions in Philosophy and Divinity too to the great prejudice of our Church and Truth and gratification of our adversaries especially those of the Roman faction whose work we foolishly do for them quod Ithacus Velit and without hope of reward or thanks ruine our selves gratis whilst others by Authority and Duty oblig'd to suppress such opinions and punish their Authors betray their trust and truth and either knowingly License which I am loath to think or negligently permit such Apocryphal and Erroneous positions to be publish'd in veritatis damnum Ecclesiae Anglicanae scandalum God Almighty be merciful to this bleeding Church and Nation and to every true Member of either of them to your self and Sir Your faithful Servant T. B Another Letter to Sir J. B. Sir I received yours and return a thousand thanks I am glad that neither you nor that excellent person to whom you did innocently and prudently communicate what sub sigillo I communicated to you do condemn my censure of the Book I mention'd I confess I am and a long time have been not a little troubled to see Protestants nay Clergy-men and Bishops approve and propagate that which they miscall New-Philosophy so that our Universities begin to be infected with it little considering the Cause or Consequences of it or how it tends evidently to the advantage of Rome and the ruine of our Religion 1. It is certain this New-Philosophy as they call it was set on foot and has been carried on by the Arts of Rome and those (a) Vid. Juramentum Professionis fidei which all her Ecclesiasticks take in Concilio Trident Sess 24. De Reformatione in calce cap. 12. whose Oath and Interest it is to maintain all her superstitions Campanella de Monarchia Hispaniae I have lent out my Book and cannot cite you the page gives this advice to the King of Spain to give large stipends to some persons of great parts and wit who may in Flanders propagate some new opinions in Philosophy tells him that the Hereticks such as you and I he means are greedy of novelty and will be apt to receive such New opinions in Philosophy whence divisions and new opinions in Divinity will arise By which divisions so set on foot and well managed the Hereticks may with much more ease be rooted out and ruin'd Since which time Papists especially the Jesuites have promoted this New-Philosophy and their new design to ruine us by it for the great Writers and Promoters of it are of the Roman Religion such as Des Cartes Gassendus Du Hamel Maurus Mersennus De Mellos c. and what divisions this new Philosophy has caused amongst Protestants in Holland and England cannot be unknown to any considering person When I was though unworthy Library-Keeper and seeing the Jesuites and Popish party cry up their New-Philosophy I did by friends send to Paris Venice Florence Rome Alcala de Henares Academia Complutensis in Spain c. to inquire whether the Jesuites in their Colledges train'd up their young men in the New-Philosophy or whether in all their Disputations they kept them to strict form and Aristotle's way of ratiocination and the return I had from all places was That none were more strict than they in keeping all their young men to the old principles and forms of Disputation For they well know that all their School-men Casuists and Controversy-Writers have so mix'd Aristotle's Philosophy with their Divinity that he who has not a comprehension of Aristotles Principles and the use of them in all Scholastick Disputes and Controversies of Religion will never be able rationally to defend or confute any controverted position in the Roman or Reformed Religion Now while they keep close to the old way of disputing on the old received Principles if they can persuade us to spend our time about novel Whimsies and not well understood Experiments and neglect the severer Studies of the old Philosophy and Scholastical
all might have and as they were concern'd read them Though the Church of Rome now impiously prohibits the having or Reading the Scriptures in any vulgar Tongue 2. As they had the Scriptures so they had some of the Greek Fathers Translated in Latin For instance they had Irenaeus Translated into Latin for 't is certain he writ in Greek so as the Original Greek Copy is lost and neither they nor we can find it And 't is certain that they had many other Greek Fathers Translated into Latin as appears by their Canonists Schoolmen and other Latin Writers who Cite Chrysostome Basil Nazianzen c. who understood no Greek and therefore made use of their Latin Translations only It is also certain that they had in their Liberaries many Greek Fathers which lay there Untranslated But how many were Translated into Latin and how many were not I know no Man has or indeed can tell In the tenth Century which all learned Men even Papists call Saeculum indoctum for the horrid Ignorance of that Age and those five Centuries which followed till Luther Evangelical Truth and Greek were rare commodities at Rome Latin was the Language of the Beast in those six Centuries Their Canonists and Schoolmen understood no Greek nor good Latin as is well known to all who know them Nay he who understood and studied the Greek Tongue was suspected to be an Heretick And no wonder seeing the Greek Tongue was condemn'd in their (d) Cap. Inter Solicitudines 1. Clem. 4 De Magistris Canon Law For when Pope Clement the 5th in the General Council at Vienna Anno 1312. had Decreed eight Professors of Tongues to be Established in five Universities Rome Paris Oxford Salamanca and Bononia two in Hebrew two in Chaldee two in Arabick and two in Greek publickly to teach those Languages in their Canon Law before cited the Greek Tongue is left out in all the Editions I have seen (e) Corpus Juris Canonici cum Glossis Paris 1519. Old and New (f) Corpus Juris Canonici cum Glossis Paris 1612. sine Glossis Paris Anno. 1618. Lugduni Anno. 1661. both in the Rubrick and Text it self And the Author (g) Johan Andreas Boniensis verbo Hebraicae of the Glossa there gives the Reason why the Greek Tongue is left out of the Law though it was in the Canon of the Council of Vienna Quia Graeci sunt Schismatici The Greeks as the Glosse Confesseth were anciently obedient to the Pope but now when Pope (a) Johannes Papa 22. An. Pontificatus 2. Annoque Dom. 1316. vid. Glossam ad Calcem Proaemii ad Clementinas verbo Pontificatus John Published the Clementines they were Schismaticks and therefore the Greek Tongue was damn'd at Rome where Ignorance was the Mother of their Antichristian Devotion Hence that horrid Ignorance of the Greek Tongue which prevailed in the Papacy before the Reformation even in their greatest Schoolmen and Canonists To give you an Instance or two They give us the Derivation of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and tell us Istud vocabulum fit ex duobus vocabulis ab Allo quod est alienum goro sensus Stupid Ignorance and nonsense There is no such word as Goro to signifie sense or any thing save that they wanted sense themselves And an Old Schoolman my name-sake Thomas de Argentina gives us the Derivation of Latria thus Istud vocabulum fit ex duobus vocabulis a la quod est laus Tria quod est Trinitas quia Latria est laus Trinitatis So great was their Ignorance of Greek sed transeat cum caeteris erroribus 3. As they had Scripture and Fathers Translated into Latin so they had Councils too Dionysius Exiguus Abbas Romanus in the sixth Century Translated the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversae which next the Bible is the most Authentick Book the Church ever had into Latin and most impiously (b) He leaves out the Catalogue of the Canonical Books of Scripture in the last Canon of the Council of Laodicea pag. 86. Edit Paris 1628. 2. He leaves out four Canons of the first Council of Constantinople 3. All the Canons of the Council of Ephesus 4. And the 28. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon 5. He corrupts the Canons of the Council of Sardica and other Canons c. Besides he adds many things to his Codex which were never received into the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversalis For Instance The Canons of the Council of Sardica in all 21. The African Canons also in number 138. And the Canons of the Apostles 50. None of which belongs to that Authentick Code which he pretends to Publish and Translate All which appears by the Ancient Greek Copies of that Authentick Code Especially by that Codex Canenum Ecclesiae Vniversae Published by Christ Justellus in Greek and Latin with his Learned Notes at Paris Anno 1610. corrupted it leaving out what made against the Popes and the Church of Rome's pretended greatness But to name not more particulars it is certain 1. That before the Reformation the Roman Church had many of the Greek Fathers and Councils and corrupt Translations of them as is evident by Ancient Mscr of both yet extant in Bodleys and other Libraries The Greek Copies of those Fathers and Councils being kept in Libraries (c) That the Latin Church had Copies of the Greek Fathers and Councils both in Latin and Greek appears because that since the Reformation we have out of those Mscr Copies which lay in Libraries most of those Greek Fathers and Councils Publish'd in Print very few consulting or understanding them and their corrupt Translations of them only in common use and cited by their writers By the gross Ignorance and neglect of the Latin Church which should have been a more careful keeper of Ecclesiastical Records many of the Ancient Greek Fathers have been lost as appears by Photius his Bibliotheca where he gives us an account of many Greek Fathers and Writers which are not now any where Extâ—â—t That which expell'd that more than Aegyptian darkness and Ignorance of the Church of Rome under which it had laid above six hundred Years and thereby introduc'd her prodigious Errors and Idolatries which had been impossible for her to have done had our Western World been awake and not benighted with fatal and gross Ignorance I say that means which expell'd this darkness the good providence of God so ordering it was 1. The Invention of Printing whereby good Authors Greek and Latin were more easily and with less charge got 2. The taking of Constantinople by the Turks which occasion'd many Learned Men of the Greek Church to retire into the West and the Roman-Church who brought considerable Greek Manuscripts with them and to name no more Theodorus Gaza who was the most Learned of them writ a Greek Grammar to help those who desired it to learn their Language by which means many begun to Love
his opinion has neither proof nor probability become his Proselytes 2. If you would know my opinion though it signifie little whether the Pope or Turk be the greater Antichrist 1. 'T is granted that they are both Anti-christs For even in St. Johns time there (a) 1. John 2.18 were and ever since there have been many Antichrists impious Hereticks he means and deserters (b) Ibidiem verse 19. of the truth of the Gospel but amongst those many Antichrists there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one great Antichrist who was to come as St. John there says and of all the rest the Turk and Pope have the fairest Pleas to be that Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Pope is certainly to be prefer'd and he shall have my vote for that great place of being the great Antichrist because he has some proprieties and Characteristical marks of that Beast which the Turk neither has nor can pretend too I shall only name one or two 1. The Seat of Antichrist was to be the (c) Rev. 17.18 great City which reigned over the Kings of the Earth Which unquestionably is Rome where the Pope has and does sit And even the Jesuits confess this as also other Popish writers Now the Turks Seat neither is nor ever was at Rome 2. Another mark of the great Antichrist is That he exalts (d) 2 Thess 2.3 4. himself above all that is called God c. above all Kings and Emperors who in Scripture are called Gods This the Pope does who takes upon him and his own Canonists and Council say he may do it to depose Kings and give away Kingdoms A most prodigious instance of this Papal pride we have in Pope Alexander the VI. whom you have mention'd who gave (e) Vide Constitut 2. Alexandrio 6. in Bullario Romano Tom. 1. pag. 347. Editionis Romae 1638. to Ferdinand King of Arragon and his Heirs for ever all the West Indies that is almost half the known World at one clap as appears by his Bull Published at Rome before mentioned in the Margent But the Turk has never claim'd such an Universal Monarchy over the whole World and therefore has not so good a Plea as the Pope has to be Antichrist 3. It is a mark of Antichrist or the Whore of Babylon as St. John calls her that she (a) Rev. 17.6 was drunk with the Blood of the Saints Which agrees not to the Turk who suffers Christians to live if they do not Rebel and pay their Taxes and does not take away their lives because they are not of his Religion But the Pope where ever he has power suffers none to live who will not submit to him and imbrace his Romish and Idolatrous way of Worship The many thousands nay many hundred thousands who barely on this account have in these last 600. Years been Murder'd by the Pope and his party either by open War Inquisitions or otherways are signal evidences of this truth and amongst others the French Massacre Anno. 1572. and our late Irish Massacre are sad and signal Instances I am Sir Your affectionate Friend and Servant T. L. Bugden Sept. 9. 1682. The Bishops thoughts being desired about two things namely 1. when the Famous Prophetical passage in Hooker might have its Accomplishment and 2. about the Modus of the deposing of a King in Poland the Circumstances of which it was probable the Bishop was well inform'd in by his frequent Conversation with some Polonian Noble Men and Students at Oxford he return'd his Answer to the two Enquiries THE passage enquired about in Hooker was as followeth viz. By these or the like suggestions received with all joy and with all sedulity practised in Certain parts of the Christian World They have brought to pass that as David doth say of Man so it is in hazard to be verified concerning the whole Religion and Service of God The time thereof may peradventure fall out to be Threescore and ten Years or if strength do serve unto Fourscore What follows is like to be small joy to them whatsoever they be that behold it Thus have the best things been overthrown not so much by puissance and might of Adversaries as through defect of Council in them that should have upheld and defended the same The Answer of the Bishop was as followeth viz. SIR I Received yours and though I have hardly time to return my thanks and tell you so yet in obedience to your commands I shall crave leave to tell you 1. That the passage you name in Mr. Hooker occurs in his fifth Book and in the end of the 79. Paragraph pag. 432. of the (a) The year when it was Printed is not mention'd only that it was Printed at London Old Edition And in the (b) Anno. 1062. last Edition of Hookers Policy by Doctor Gauden Bishop of Exeter the place occurs in the same Book and Paragraph pag. 329. 330. Note that Mr. Hooker had a Wife and if any be bad one of the worst in England and yet Bishop Gauden in his (c) Pag. 12. â—incâ ultimâ Life before Hookers Policy tells us that Mr. Hooker was never Married Now for Mr. Hookers Prophetical passage the time of it is not yet come For though we talked much of it and said it was fulfill'd when the Long Parliament pull'd down the Church and sold Church-lands for of such Sacriledge Hooker speaks yet it may be fulfill'd hereafter and Hookers Prediction true For Hooker did first Print his first Book in the (d) See Hookers Life by Isaack Walton pag. 117. Year 1597. The first four of his Policy being before Printed (e) Ibid. pag 116. Anno 1594. Now if you add to that Number 80. which is the utmost time Hooker mentions then the time of the fulfilling his prediction must be in the (f) Ann. 1597. Add 80. In all 1677. Year 1677. and so it is possible you and I may live to see the Issue of it And so much for the Point of Prophecies concerning which and our Country Men our old Historian Gul. Neubrigensis so they Print his Name but it should be Neuburgensis tells us Gens Anglorum Prophetiis semper dedita For your other Query about Poland The Historian I recommended to you because he was commended to me by My Lord Goreski and several other Polish Gentlemen was Mart. Cromerus who has other Works but those they commend as giving the best account of the State of Poland are 1. His Chronicon de Origine rebus gestis Poloniae Basil 1582. 2. His Polonia seu de situ populis moribus c. Poloniae Basil 2582. Now the Story I told you is what those Polonian Noble Persons tell me for I have not Read much in Cromerus That Poland is an Elective Kingdom 2. That there are pacta conventa and Fundamental Capitulations between him and the People which contain Jura Regni Populi the power of the King and the Priviledges and
words and deeds exhort us to kill Hereticks Whereas 1. There is not one word in Cyprian or the Texts of Scripture he cites which any way concerns Hereticks or Heresie but only concerning Idolaters and Idolatry which are things of a far different nature 2. Had Gratian consider'd and understood what immediaâ—ely follows there in Cyprian which he cunningly and knavishly leaves out he might have clearly seen that Cyprian neither said nor meant that our blessed Saviour did by deeds and words exhort to kill Hereticks but that which Cyprian truly says our blessed Saviour did by words and deeds exhort to was that Christians should patiently suffer and by no means renounce the Gospel by serving Idols and Idolatry For after these words with which Gratian ends his Canon Christus veniens non verbis tantum nos hortatus est sed factis there should be only a comma after factis though Gratian does make a full point as if it concluded the sentence It immediately follows in Cyprian thus Non verbis tantum nos hortatus sit sed factis post omnes injurias contumelias passus crucifixus ut nos PATI ET MORI EXEMPLOSVO DOCERET ut nulla sit homini excusatio PRO SE pro Christo non patienti cum ILLE passus sit PRO NOBIS c. That which Cyprian says Christ taught us with words and deeds was not that we should kill Hereticks as Gratian would have it but that we should willingly suffer in defence of the Gospel against Idolaters And it is a signal place to this purpose where our blessed Saviour himself tells us That when the Samaritans would not receive him who were Hereticks and Idolaters too and James and John would have had Fire from Heaven to consume them our blessed Saviour rebuked them and said (a) Luc. 9.5 That the Son of Man was not come to destroy Mens lives but to save them How his pretended Vicar and his Canonists will justifie their Murthering Hereticks and Burning their Cities Ipsi viderint One place I confess they have in the Epistle to Titus which if the ridiculous Monk may interpret it will do their business This place is Titus 3.10 where the words in their vulgar Latine being these Haereticum devita which we render Reject or avoid an Heretick But the honest Monk who understood no Greek and little Latine by making two words of one proves from that Text that Hereticks must be kill'd For says he it must be read thus Haereticum de Vita tolle c. I am Sir Your affectionate Friend and faithful Servant T. L. A Letter to the Earl of Anglesey of the Council of Trent not being receiv'd in France Right Honourable and my very good Lord. I Understand by a Letter from my Ancient and Worthy Friend Sir Peter Pett that your Lordship who may command desires me to give you satisfaction as to this Question Whether the Trent Council be received in France And though I dare not undertake to give your Lordship satisfaction yet in obedience to your Lordship's Command I shall venture to say a few things My great Age and Infirmities and my little time disabling me to say more I say then 1. That Father Paul of Venice that great Scholar and Statesman who had intimate familiarity with the most eminent French Statesmen and Scholars both at Venice and Paris Father Paul I say tells us in (a) Vide Interdicti Veneti Historiam per Paulum Sarpium pas 4. 58. Print That the Trent Council was not receiv'd in France in the Year 1616. 2. The famous Peter de Marca Archbishop of Paris (b) Marca de Concordia Sacerdotii Imperii lib. 2. cap. 17. §. 6. pag. 133. Col. 7. tells us That in the time the Trent Council sate when it evidently appear'd that by the Treaty of the Trent Council the Liberty of the Gallican Church was in quam (c) Pet. de Marca ibidem plurimis capitibus in very many particulars destroyed The Ambassadors of Henry II. and Charles the IX left the Synod being call'd home by their Kings and so did the French Bishops too as Father Paul in the Hist of that Council tells us and complaining in the Council that the Liberty of the Gallican Church regia dignitas erant imminutae their recess from and leaving the Council help'd the French Pretences and was a good reason as Marca there proves non admittendae Synodi why they did not receive the Council 3. The same Marca in the same places tells us (d) Marca ibidem pag. 133. col 1. Totius cleri Gallicani comventus Concilii Tridentini promulgationem à Regibus nostris supplicibus libellis postulaverit ea lege ut ea capita exciperent quae libertatibus Ecclesiae adversarentur Quorum desideriis principes toto hoc negotio saepe in consilium prudentissimorum relato se accommodare non potuerunt That the whole Clergy of France in their Synods did most frequently petition their Kings that they would publish and receive the Trent Council excepting those things which were repugnant to the Liberties of the Gallican can Church yet their Kings tho they consulted the wisest of men about that business would never grant their Petition nor publish or receive the Trent Council with the exception whence it is evident if that great Arch-bishop say true that the Kings of France would never receive any of the Trent Council no not that part of it which was not against the Liberties of their Church or their King's Regality 4. And hence it evidently appears that the Learned Marca does contradict himself For in the same (e) Pag. 133. Col. 1. Concilii Tridentini Definitiones fidei ad missae sunt Edicto publico quod ea de relatum est Anno 1579. page and Column and the two first lines of it he says That the Definitions of the Council of Trent concerning Faith were admitted in France by a publick Edict Anno 1579. which must be in the 6th year of Henry the III. of France and yet he tells us in the same page and Column That altho the whole Clergy of France did most frequently petition their Kings to promulgate and admit only that part of the Trent Council which was not against the Liberties of the Gallican Church if these Words mean any thing they must mean the Definitions of Faith which Marca says were received by the Edict 1579. Yet their Kings would never admit any of it And if their Kings would never admit any of it tho the whole Clergy did petition them to do it then it was not admitted by any publick Edict in the 6th year of Henry the III that is in the year 1579. 5. And that which makes this more certain and evident that the Trent Council was not received in France Anno 1579. which Marca says appears by Thuanus a Witness beyond all exception who assures us that the Trent Council was not receiv'd in France Anno Dom. 1588.
times a Loyal Subject and faithful Servant to his Prince and a true Son of the Church of England c. So that the commendation I can give him although it be great will be ivtra laudem sed infra meritum The old saying is still true Cicerone opus est ut dignè laudetur Cicero I shall only name two passages which concern my Lord which shew his ingenuity and Learning Being with my Lord in Oxford some time after Dr. Hoyle was by the Rebâ—llioâ—s Parliament invited out of Ireland and by them design'd Regius Professor of Divinity it seems that we had not then amongst all our English Dissenters any one who durst undertake that Office although it was both for dignity and revenue very considerable Now Dr. Hoyle a known Rebell and Presbyterian being so exceedingly magnify'd in all our Mercuries and News-Books for a most Learned Divine I ask'd my Lord whether Dr. Hoyle was a person of such great parts as was pretended My good Lord presently told us only Dr. Morly since Bishop of Winton and my self were present That he very well knew Dr. Hoyle in Dublin and had him many times at his Table and that he was a person of some few weak parts but of very many strong infirmities This Character which my Lord gave of Dr. Hoyle is like himself very ingenious and the University did find it true Another thing concerning that very ingenious and Learned Lord and very well known to me and many others was this When Mr. Chillingworth undertook the Defence of Dr. Potter's Book against the Jesuite he was almost continually at Tew with my Lord examining the Reasons of both Parties pro and con and their invalidity or consequence where Mr. Chillingworth had the benefit of my Lords Company and his good Library The benefit he had by my Lord's Company and rational Discourse was very great as Mr. Chillingworth would modestly and truly confess But his Library which was well furnish'd with choice Books I have several times been in it and seen them such as Mr. Chillingworth neither had nor ever heard of many of them 'till my Lord shew'd him the Books and the passages in them which were significant and pertinent to the purpose So that it is certain that most of those Ancient Authorities which Mr. Chillingworth makes use of he owes first to my Lord of Falkland s Learning that he could give him so good directions and next to his civility and kindness that he would direct him But no more of this You desire to know some more Authors who in the War between Charles the I. and the Parliament writ for the King you name Dudly Diggs Dr. Ferne Dr. Hammond and you might have named many more all Ingenuous and Loyal persons and my Friends and Acquaintance but I do not think their Reasons so cogent or their Authority so great that we may safely rely upon them I shall rather commend unto you two Writers on this subject both of them of great Authority and in several respects of greater Judgment I mean 1. Arch-Bishop Vsher whose judgment in Antiquity is far greater 2. My Predecessor Bishop Sanderson the best and most rational Casuist ever England had whose judgment will be confest far greater 1. First Arch-Bishop Usher does expresly and datâ operâ make it his business to prove our King's Supremacy in all Civil and Ecclesiastical Causes against all Popes and Parliaments and to the same purpose does amongst others cite Bp. Andrews Hooker Dr. Saravia and which is very considerable there 's a long Preface to the Book of at least 20 pages in Quarto The Book was publish'd by Dr. Bernard Bishop Usher's Chaplain Anno 1661. and Printed at London and Sold by Richard Mariott in St. Dunstan's Church-yard in Fleetstreet The Title of the Book is this Clavi Trabales confirming the King's Supremacy and the Subjects Duty c. 2. This second Author I mention was Dr. Sanderson Bishop of Lincoln in his Tracts 1. De solemni Ligâ Foedere 2. De Juramento Negativo 3. De Ordinationibus Parliamenti circa disciplinam cultum And that which adds honour and weight to these Tracts is this that although Dr. Sanderson then Regius Professor of Divinity composed them yet they contain not his judgment but the judgment of the whole Vniversity of Oxford for it is call'd in the Title page Judicium Vniversitatis Oxoniensis in plena Convocatione Communibus suffragijs nemine contradicente promulgatum 1 Junii 1647. In the last and best Edition besides the 3. Tracts above mention'd you have his excellent Prelections 1. De Obligatione Juramenti promissorii 2. De obligatione conscientiae The last and best Edition I above mention'd was at London Anno 1671. By Richard Royston in St. Paul's Church-yard For answering your other Questions I must as poor men do crave some more time The Circumstances I am in and the very many publick businesses which at this time trouble me did disable me to return to you a speedier answer with my thanks for your kind Letter I beg your pardon for the rude Scrible and my great Age Anno 85. currente and the Infirmities which accompany it consider'd I hope your goodness will grant it I shall only add that God Almighty would be graciously pleas'd to bless you and your Studies is the Prayer of Your Affectionate Friend and Servant Thomas Lincoln The Substance of a Letter Written by Dr. Barlow late Lord Bishop of Lincolne to Mr. Isaac Walton upon his design of Writing the Life of his Predecessour Bishop Sanderson AFTER he has Congratulated Mr. Walton upon his design to write the Life of Bishop Sanderson and that upon two accounts viz. Because he was satisfied both of his ability to know and his Integrity to write Truth And that he was no less assured that the Life of that Prelate would afford him matter enough both for his commendation and for the Imitation of Posterity He next proceeds to gratifie his desires in assisting him towards the said intended Work with the Communication of such particular passages of that Prelates Life as were certainly known to him and gives him a short Narration of which this is the substance First he professes he had known him about twenty Years and that in Oxford he had injoyed his Conversation and Learned and Pious Instructions when he was Royal Professor of Divinity in that University and that after he was by the cross events that hapned in the Civil Wars in the time of King Charles the First forced to retire into the Country he had the benefit of conversing with him by Letters wherein with great candour and affection he answered all doubts he proposed to him and gave him more satisfaction than he ever had or expected from others But to proceed to particulars he further says that having hapned in one of his Letters to the said Dr. Sanderson to mention two or three Books Written professedly against the being of Original Sin and asserting
some others of their own Writers 4. Whereas that Popish Calendar asserts That the Papists in the Powder Treason and Conspiracy were Desperador's of a Religion which detests such Treasons And that all sober Catholicks utterly detest that and all such abominable Conspiracies our Prefacer to that Answers 1. That he easily grants those Gunpowder Traitours to have been indeed Desperado's or Desperate Villains because none but such could have been capable of so Devilish an attempt nor so Abominable Conspiracy as the Calendar truly terms it against their King and Country But then if those concern'd in that Plot were only Desperado's and not sober Catholicks he would fain know what those Great and Learned Popish Writers were who in writings approved by their whole party so highly commend those Gunpowder Traitours and other of their Faction justly Condemned and Executed for High Treason and who tell us they lived like Saints and died like Martyrs And was their renowned Father Parsons sober when he says of Garnet a Principal Gunpowder Traitour that he was an Innocent Man who suffered injustly That he lived a Saints Life and accomplish'd the same with a happy Death dying in Defence of Justice And was not his Brother Petrus de Ribadenira of the same Society a sober Man as well as the approvers of his Book Intituled a Catalogue of the Writers of the Society of Jesus Printed at Antwerp 1613. pag. 377. In the Index of the Martyrs when in the said Book he reckons Garnet Southwell Oldcorne c. Gunpowder Traitours amongst the Martyrs of the Jesuitical Society as likewise Campian who was justly Executed for (a) Cambdens Eliz. an Reg. 24. lib. 3 pag. 239. 240. High Treason whom he ranks among The most Renowned and Famous Martyrs of Christ And not to trouble the Reader with more Testimonies to prove a truth notorious to all that will Read their most approved Authors our Prefacer out of many only adds what one Abraham Bzovius in his Book of the Roman Pope or Pontif written to prove the Popes Extravagant Power to Depose Kings c. asserts and how rarely well he proves his Doctrine by the conformable practice of his Popes when he gives us a Catalogue of about (b) Abraham â—â—zoâ—ius de Pontifice Romano cap. 46. p. 611. 30. Kings and Princes deposed or by Solemn Anathema's Curs'd and Damn'd by the Pope and cites about (c) â—zovius ibid. pag. 619 620. 200 of their most Learned and famous Authors to prove and justifie it and how passing from them to Campian and the Gunpowder Traitours justly Executed in England for their Treasons he further boasts That an (d) Abraham 〈◊〉 â—bi◠〈◊〉 â—6 pâ—g â—â—â— â—ol 1. innumerable Company of English Martyrs following their Captain Edmund Campian taught the same thing that is they taught the Popes unlimited Supreâ—acy and pretended Power to damn and depose Kings and authorise their Subjects to take Arms against them they being alledged to no other end So that with them Treason and Innocence Traitour and Martyr seem to signifie the same thing which premises consider'd our R. Prefacer appeals to any sober and unprejudiced Reader whether such desperate and received Principles viz. That an Excommunicate or Heretick i. e. Non-popish King is ipso Facto devested of Majesty and all Royal Authority and vested with the Character of a Tyrant and Enemy to the Roman Catholick Cause and consequently may be killed c. And that such as ingage in any such impious design if they miscarry and suffer for it as 't is hoped they always will do as they have done hitherto are Famous and Renowned Martyrs of Christ and whether the certain assurance such Resolute Villains have that if they should change to suffer for any such attempt instead of being branded for Traitours they shall stand exalted in Red Letters in their Calendar and be magnified for Martyrs whether all this can be otherwise than a mighty encouragement to them to any Plot or Conspiracy how black and impious soever especially when they shall consider it not only to be Glorious and Meritorious thus to promote their Cause but their bounden duty so to do when the Jesuits give the Word And whether all this again can be less incouragment to them to design and Execute any conspiracies against any whole Nations of Protestants as well as their Princes whom they look upon as the worst of Hereticks and Prescribed Enemies of their Church not worthy to live in the World as being Condemned by the Popes Supream and Infallible Sentence to be Prosecuted More Romano with Fire and Sword Certainly such an Opinion says our Prefacer true or false must needs put them on with a strange fury to endeavour the utter Extirpation and ruine of those they believe to be such impious villains and so hated of God and Man And though our Prefacer Confesses he knows some of that Party and hopes there may be more of a better temper yet to shew his Readers what Opinion the Popish party have generally of Protestants both Prince and People here in England he inserts their Character of us in the Words of a Popish Pamphlet Publish'd since the late King Charles's Restauration to Poyson their deluded People with a hatred of all Protestants and of their Religion In which Pamphlet are these Assertions viz. 1. That the Protestant Religion is a Cheat Heresie and Heathenism pag. 3. 2. That the Protestant Bible is no more the Word of God than the Alcoran of the Turks pag. 4. 3. That all Protestant Bishops Ministers c. are Priests of Baal Cheaters and false Prophets ibid. 4. That they are false Bishops (a) Pope Pius in his Bull 4. of Damnation and Excommunication against Q. Elix An. 1570. §. 2. Calls them Wicked Preachers and Ministers of Impiety Sons of Iniquity and Fathers of Mischief and Antichristian ibid. pag. 16. 5. That the Protestant Religion is Ridiculous and Idolatrous 6. Again that all Protestant Bishops and Ministers are Priests of Baal Ministers of Satan and Enemies of God and our Souls pag. 32. 7. And lastly he adds that the King and the Parliament were Sectaries and Hereticks ibid. pag. 32. Which Pamphlet has this Title viz. Miracles not Ceased By A. S. London 1663. And contains as is pretended in the Title Page The most Glorious Miracles wrought by a Roman Catholick Priest about London and Westminster in 1663. in Confirmation of the Holy Roman Catholick Faith which Priest is there termed a Holy Man of God and is said pag. third to be sent by God to do Miracles in Confirmation of the Holy Roman Catholick Church and her Doctrine pag. 15 16. Our Prefacer tells us the words he has cited are that Popish Authors own words and the Articles of Impeachment he brings against Protestants and that he pretends he has clearly proved some of those Articles in another Book of his which he Intitules The Reconciler of Religion for so he calls it pag. 3. of the above cited
the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola Printed at Antwerp 1635. pag. 238. to which are added some Rules to be observed in order to direct us the better to believe as the Church believes 1. The first Rule is That wholly laying aside our own proper Judgment we are always to have a mind entirely disposed to obey the True Church pag. 128. Reg. 1. 2. The second is in these terms And that we may be perfectly unanimous with and conformable to the same Catholick Church though she should define that which appears to our Eyes to be White to be Black yet are we obliged likeâ—ise to pronounce with her That it is Black Reg. 13. pag. 141. Which Rules and all other Contents of the said Spiritual Exercises are approved and received by the whole Body of Jesuits and not only so but further most highly commended in these words viz. That they were full of â—iety and Sanctity and very useful for promoting the Edification and Spiritual proficiency of the Faithful being the Expressions used by the Pope himself in the aforesaid Bull of his Canonization of Ignatius Loyola Pag. 5. Sect. 22. Edit 8. of the Ides or the 6th of Ang. 1623. And further no less commended by the Cardinal of St. Clements a Roman Inquisitour the Vicar General and the Master of the Sacred Palace to whose Inspection and Censure that Work was committed by the Pope And what is still more the same Supreme and according to the Jesuits and Canonists Infallible Judge the Pope gives this further high Character and Approbation of that Book and its Contents We do Approve Commend and Establish all and singular the Contents of them of our own certain knowledge earnestly exhorting all and every faithful Believer or Believers in Christ of both Sexes and wheresoever inhabiting to make use of such pious Documents and devoutly to be pleased to be instructed by them being the express terms of the above-cited Bull ibid. pag. 5. Now this wicked and erroneous Doctrine pursues our Prefacer being once granted and actually embraced for an Authentick Doctrine of their Church as actually it is It is no wonder the Jesuits and the Popish Party should securely study and use all means imaginable for the utter Extirpation of all Protestant Princes or Subjects by Fire Sword Gunpowder-Plots or any other Conspiracies or Methods whatsoever Because that tho' such attempts may justly seem horrid to all sober Men and even to honest Pagans yet the Jesuits and Popish Party are so far from esteeming them sinful that when done out of Zeal to their Cause and with the approbation of their Superiours which never fails them at a dead lift they are applauded as Virtuous nay and what is more as highly meritorious And 2dly Though such actions in their own Judgments should appear to be indeed what they are sinful and black and barbarous yet what effect can that have upon Men who have been taught to renounce all their own reason and sense too and submit to and obey with a blind obedience all the Dictates of their Superiours to call White Black and Vice Vertue whenever they bid them and to think all things lawful and just which are commanded by them as may be seen in the Constitutions with a Declaration of the Society of Jesus printed at Antwerp 1635. part 6. cap. 1. pag. 233. and ibid. part 3. cap. 1. sect 23. pag. 123. Nay and that they are further enjoyned to obey their Superiour as if he were Christ Himself is visible ibid In the General Exam. with the Declar. cap. 4. pag. 37. And whereas the Jesuits endeavour to hide the odiousness of this impious absolute obedience to any but God and his Christ by a pretended qualification of its sense in thus explaining their Universal Obedience viz. That they must obey their Superiours in all Things in which there is no manifest sin As they tell us in the above cited Book part 6. cap. 1. pag. 233. and 234. Those says our Prefacer are but Jesuitical Frauds and pitiful Shifts sorry Fig-Leaves that may a little cover from unwary Eyes but never justifie their Doctrine of Absolute Obedience from Impiety For says he of what use can that Restriction be viz. Where there is no manifest sin to those who have before renounced all use of their own judgment and senses and who though they see and know a thing to be sinful and wicked never so plainly yet if they be told it is good and holy are bound to think it so and if they are but commanded it are bound to think that Command alone is sufficient to make it lawful just and meritorious and that if they obey not thus without any excuse or murmuring their obedience cannot be perfect As they are taught in the above-cited Book pag. 233. and again part 3. cap. 1. pag. 123. 2. When he reflects upon that injunction of theirs by which they are obliged to respect their Superiours as Persons that are Châ—ist's Vicars and that act in his place and stead as we find it in the above-cited Book pag. 123. and 152. and part 4 cap. 10. pag. 183. and Epist 1. Ignat. of the Virtue of Obedience to the Portuguese Brethren Sect. 4. and ibid. Sect. 3 and 11 our Prefacer thinks this sort of Jesuitical Divinity viz. that every little â—uperiour in that haughty Society must be obeyed aâ— Christ himself and to be esteemed as his Vicar that is the Pope himself must needs be as dangerous to the Pope's Authority as to that of Princes or others and that adds he a Learned Spaniard and Zealous Papist has both said and by evident instances proved That Author's Name is Alphonsus de Vargas of Toledo and the Title of his Book runs thus A Relation to Christian Kings and Princes of the Stratagems and politick Tricks and Quirks of the Society of Jesus to ingross the Monarchy of the World to themselves In which the Treachery of the Jesuits against both Princes and their People and their persidious and injurious practises against even the Pope himself and their unbridled Ambition to Innovate in matters of Faith is proved by manifest Examples Printed first Anno 1636 and afterwards Anno 1642. 3. Neither do they only says he advance their Superiours to be God's Vice-gerents and Vicars of Christ but further affirm them to be the Interpreters of the Divine Will to whose Government they have wholly given up themselves to obeâ— their Commands as the Commands of â—hrist and to make their Superiours Wiâ—â—â— the Rule of theirs as appears in the above cited Epist 1. of Ignat. of the Virtue of Obedience to the Portuguese Brethren Sect. 11. And in that other of the Constitut of the Society of Jesus with the Exam. and Declar. Printed at Antwerp 1635. cap. 4. Sect. 30 pag. 37. and in the Summary of the Constitut of the Society of Jesus Printed at Antwerp 1635 Sect. 31. pag. 17. which Blind and Abâ—olute Obedience pursues he is highly approved and commended to them
3. cap. 2. parag 12. pag. 188. Gal. 5.22 But before becomes to the proof of this he confesses he has the Jesuits and some Remonstrants against him such as Maldonat in Joh. 9. c. and Mart. Becan in Compend Man lib. 1. cap. 16. Quest 3. pag. 335. and in Summ. Theol. part 2. Quest 8. pag. 802. and Pet. Bertius de Apostas Sanct. pag. 42 43. Act. Synod Remonstr in Defens Artic. 5. de persever Sanct. pag. 230 231. who in order to establish a worse Errour viz. The final Apostacy of the Saints assert That this common or temporary faith is not only specifically but even gradually the same with saving faith and would justifie if persevered in whose Arguments he passes by as undeserving a confutation being so pitifully weak and because his Learned and Ingenious Adversary Mr. Baxter proceeds not so far as to assert That such a faith can justifie However by the by he tells us that he conceives that it may be manifestly evinced against those Adversaries by many Circumstances of the Text in Matt. 13.5 6 21 22. where common faith is described by four Conditions that cannot possibly agree to a saving faith that it must needs be more than gradually different from it Now proceeds he though this were sufficient to prove his abovesaid position yet he will still add some more distinct Confirmations of it which he does by the following additional Reasons viz. Reason 1. Drawn from the vast difference between the nature of the Causes and first Principles of these two sorts of Faith because the one is Heaven-born immediately from the Spirit of Christ which sows in us an Immortal seed of faith which can never die but must overcome sin in the Elect and work Regeneration And the Other is only a Humane faith wrought by Humane Means and assents to Divine Truths out of meer Humane Motives and by meer Humane Causes as false Reasonings or more forcible Temptations and Persecutions may be overthrown and extinguisht Reason 2. From the different Nature and proper acts of both Qualities saving belief being the first Spiritual Life by which a Christian lives and is justified Heb. 10.38 whereas common belief is often in them who are dead in Trespasses and Sins and neither justifies sanctifies nor saves Reason 3. Because 't is evident common faith may be in a very high degree in some Impious and Vnregenerate Persons who have acute parts and are Learned and Industrious and thrive into a Radicated Habit and a great measure of knowledge of both speculative and practical Divine Truths which by their Learning they may be able to demonstrate and may really believe and assent to and yet never proceed to pay true obedience to c. And because though there are many degrees of saving faith too from the Child to the Strong Man in Christ which include far less knowledge than some degrees of common faith yet the weakest of them is saving whereas the highest degree of common faith can neither justifie nor save a plain Evidence these two faiths are of kinds as different as Heaven and Earth Reason 4. Is because common Grace as the knowledge of several Tongues and of many Divine Truths as it is generally a Habit or Disposition acquired by our Natural Faculties improved by Industry Education c. and so depending upon mutable principles as our Will and Vnderstanding so they may be lost again by negligence or malice whereas saving faith being produced by the Eternal and Immutable Spirit of Christ is incorruptible and can never die nor be lost John 17.3 1 Pet. 1.23 Heb. 10.38 John 6.47 51 54. See Aquin. 1. 2. Quaest 51. Art 4. in Corp. Artic. which he proves further by conferring 1 John 3.9 5.1.4 8. with 1 John 5.18 Reason 5. Is because though common and saving faith may have the same material object viz. Divine Truths revealed by God in the Gospel as that Jesus is the Son of God c. yet these truths are embraced by these two faiths upon different Motives and by far different means the one being built only upon Humane Mediums and Arguments such as Vnregenerate Persons by their natural parts helpt with Learning c. may attain to which is an assent like its Principles that begot it humane and fallible whereas saving faith proceeding from Christ's Spirit and built upon his immediate Illumination and Testimony which is Divine and Infallible must of necessity be an assent differing from the former more than in degree and be like its cause Divine and Infallible likewise which proof he further illustrates by comparing the difference between Opinion and Science with that between common and saving faith and by several Scriptural Arguments besides Reason 6. Is because if common and saving faith were essentially the same then Irregenerate and Impious Persons who have common Graces may be as gracious and as true Believers as the best Saints though not in so high a degree as the smallest grain of Gold is as truly Gold as the whole Wedge but that this consequence is de facto false Ergo c. And that it is really false appears by this says he that 't is as impossible for a Christian to have any other Theological Vertues or Graces without true faith as 't is for a Man according to the Moralists to have any other Moral Vertues without Prudence which is the Root of them all And further adds he if it be true as Mr. Baxter says in Exercit. de fid c. Art 30. pag. 279. Rat. 7. and Aphoris in Explicat Thes 69. pag. 266 and 267. That the Essence of saving faith consists in accepting Christ and loving him as our Lord and Saviour then it follows that those who do not so accept and love him have not the essence of saving faith and therefore that since 't is evident that no Irregenerate Persons though somtimes full fraught with common faith yet do ever so accept and love Christ therefore it follows their faith must needs be of a very different kind from saving faith Q.E.D. Reason 7. And last is Because if common and saving grace be essentialiy the same then it would follow that a Man who has an historical Faith whilst Unregenerate by the help of Natural parts Learning c. and afterwards should become Regenerate would by the Spirit of Christ receive only a greater degree of the same faith he had before and consequently that saving Grace would not be a Gift of God's as to its essence but only as to its degree because we should owe the essence of it only to our natural parts c. and the degree only to Christ's Spirit But this Doctrine says he is contrary to express Scripture and resolved to be so by the Ancient Church and by her expresly condemned in her Councils as Pelagian and Heretical and therefore it follows that the difference between common and saving faith must needs be specifical as appears in Concil Arausicann 2 Can. 4 5 6 7 8.
dubious 2. And further 't is evident that we neither have nor without some new Divine revelation can have any infallible means to know that a General Council is Infallible For 1. Scripture never so much as names a General Council much less says it is Infallible 2. Nor does it legally tell us who can call it 3. Nor who must chuse Representatives or how many or what power they can give them 4. Nor when they are called Commissioned and come whether all must concurr to make an Infallible Decree or the Major part of Votes will be sufficient 5. Nor what means they must use to make their Decree certain and infallible or whether they shall be infallible in their definitions whether they be good or impious persons whether they use good means to find out the truth or none at all I say 't is evident that neither our Blessed Saviour nor his Apostles have assured us of any of these in Scripture nor any acknowledg'd General Council since ever defin'd Synodically and declared a General Council to be Infallible And therefore we have just reason to say that it is irrational to perswade Men there is an Infallible Guide and that a General Council on whose Judgment we may with certainty and undoubtedly rely when there is neither Scripture nor General Council and therefore no infallible means for universal and uninterrupted Tradition neither is nor can be pretended to nor indeed any thing else to prove a General Council to be infallible He who thinks otherwise let him shew me any place in Scripture or Canon of any legitimate General Council to prove what he says and if I cannot make it appear to any impartial Judge that 't is impertinent and his reason from it inconsequent he shall have my hearty thanks and subscription to his opinion if so proved For I should count him no less then a Mad man at least highly irrational who travelling towards Heaven would refuse an infallible Guide to bring him thither if he could be assured there were such an one And he is little wiser who without such assurance follows any who pretends to what he cannot prove 3. 3. Not necessary There is no necessity of such a pretended Eternal Guide Our Blessed Saviour who is the (a) Rev. 15.3 King of Saints and (b) Eph. 5.23 head of his Church governs and directs it with his Holy word the Scriptures (c) Externâ— per verbum interne per spiritum Aquinas without and his holy Spirit within nor is there or can be any true Member of his Church and Mystical Body which has not his holy (a) Rom. 8.9 Spirit to direct and comfort it His holy word is fidei morum Regula an Infallible Rule of our actions and belief and his Spirit where really it is and it is really in every Member of his Mystical Body is an internal Principle which enlightens the understanding of all in whom it is and sanctifies their will and affections and enables them to believe and obey the truth Whence it is that every pious person and Member of the true Church of Christ is said to be (b) Joh. 6.45 taught of God and our Blessed Saviour has promised that all such shall understand and (c) Joh. 7.17 8.32 know the truth of the Scriptures This means our blessed Saviour and his Apostles left in the Church and it was and still is sufficient for Salvation without any General Council for an infallible Guide That it was sufficient for 325 years after Christ is undeniably evident thus 1. It is certain and on all sides confess'd that there was no General Council in the world 'till the first Nicene-Council which was in the year 325. I ask then were the Primitive Christians saved in that 325 years when there was no General Council to guide them infallibly or were they not If you say they were not saved then your Roman Martyrologie all your Missals and Breviaries are manifestly false and your Church errs in all which are hundreds of Martys and Saints acknowledged and in your Sacred Offices Prayers made to them which if they were neither Saints nor Saved were not only erroneous but highly impious And if you say that they were saved in those 325 years when they had no General Council to guide them infallibly as of necessity you ought and must say then say I that Christians might have had Salvation if no General Council had ever been For there neither is any reason nor can any be given why Christians should have more need of an infallible Guide in the following than they had in the first Ages And therefore if there was no necessity of an infallible Guide then there will be none now but as they were so we may be saved without one If iâ— be said that the many Heresies whiâ—â— arose in after Ages made an Infallible Guide a General Council more necessary it will be reply'd with evident truth that there were more wild Heresies in those first Ages we now speak of than in any since as will be manifest to any who seriously read and impartially consider the Writings of those Ancient (a) Such as Iraeneus Epiphanius Augustine Theodoret Philâ—stinus c. Fathers who have given us just Catalogues of the Hereticks and Heresies of those first Ages And therefore if those Primitive Christians for 325 years notwithstanding all the Heresies in their times were for Zeal and Piety excellent Persons Saints and Martyrs without any infallible Guide so might we too if we should do as they did that is diligently read the Scriptures believe and obey them exercising all those acts of Piety towards God and Charity towards our Neighbours which are there clearly enough required of us so that there is now no necessity of an infallible Guide which without any proof is vainly pretended to 4. Nor ever was there any General Council 4. And we say further that there never was any Council in the World such as is pretended to be infallible which was truly General Oecumenical For 1. It is and must be confessed that a General Council truly and properly so called and none else is pretended to be infallible must consist of the Representatives of the whole Christian World 2. It is also certain and evident that the Representatives of a very great if not the greater part of the Christian World were never called or sent or came to any Council which has been held any where since the Apostles times I mean none out of Aethopia Persia India c. were either called or came to any of those Councils which hitherto have been held as is manifest by their Subscriptions and yet all Histories agree that the Gospel was Preached and Christians planted in those Countries So that the greatest Councils we have yet had are only Imperial not truly General call'd by the Roman Emperours and consisting of Bishops within their jurisdiction If it be said that both Protestants and Papists call the
he may make Laws to oblige them to do such and such particular things as Christ hath Commanded them Thirdly As he may punish them for not doing so Thus much of the potestas ordinis in Ecclesiastical Persons But Secondly there may be considered in them the Power of Jurisdiction and that 1. In foro interno and this Power they have from Christ and not from Magistrates 2. In foro externo and Coactive and this Jurisdiction is wholly borrowed from the Civil Power and is directly subject to it Sacro fungi Ministerio nisi legitimè vocatus nullus jure potest IN the explaining the terms of the Question in order to the stating of it we shall First Take notice that the mentioning of the word Ministerium makes it obvious to us to distinguish it by Civile and Sacrum The Civil Ministry is generally taken for a publick Office or Trust committed to any by a Prince or State And so you may find it in the Imperial Laws l. 1. ff ad L. Jul. Repetund And this name of Ministers was given to the most Honourable Officers in the Roman Common-wealth But the Ministerium Sacrum is Munus alicui a Deo demandatum quo ipsi immediatius famulamur and which doth not look so much at the Political and External good of a State as Mens Ecclesiastical and inward concerns and at the Glory of God and at the Eternal Salvation of the Souls of Men. But Secondly This Ministry is not said to be Sacred in respect of its Principium a quo namely God Because although absolute loquendo the Ecclesiastical Ministry may be call'd Sacred respectu principii a quo namely God yet Comparative loquendo it is not more Sacred in order to God as the Principium a quo than the Civil Ministry for both of them do meet in this that they are a Deo And so they are both Sacred on this account For Kings in respect of their Authority delivered from God are Sacred Persons and were so called in all Ages and by all People So Sacra Majestas Caesarea Sacra Majestas Regia are the most known Epitheti of Supream Power But the Ecclesiastical Ministry is said to be Sacred in respect of its object and the matter in which it Converseth of the Management of Holy things Committed to a Man by God whereas the Civil Ministry handles not things Sacred but Civil This Sacred Ministry we affirm to have been committed by God to some certain Persons And that First Immediately in the time of the Gospel as when Christ chose the Apostles and 70. Disciples and employ'd them in the Ministry of the Gospel Secondly Mediately Thus the Apostles and their Successours did commit this Ministry to others by them chosen and ordain'd For this see S. Mathew 28.18 19 20. Jesus came and spake to them saying All power is given to me in Heaven and Earth go ye therefore and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost c. There he committs to them the Authority given him by his Father And this is more clear out of St. John c. 20. 21. As my Father hath sent me so send I you Christ was sent by his Father they by Christ and others by them you may further consult Acts 20.28 Take heed therefore to your selves and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers c. The Spirit of God did make them Bishops but not immediately for we know they were Constituted mediately by Man The Question therefore is whether any may perform the acts of this Ministry who are not Lawfully call'd to it We deny it and do distinguish of a double calling First Extraordinary when God doth call some Men immediately and having endow'd them with gifts sends them into the Vineyard So we know the Prophets and Apostles were call'd to the work of the Ministry and we believe that others by them were in ipsis nascentis Ecclesiae primordiis so call'd Secondly I do not doubt but that God by his infinite power may sometime call Men thus to it even at this Day But that he hath actually call'd any Men so extraordinarily and immediately the Church having been settled for so many years I deny Nor shall I believe it unless by manifest criterions they make it appear to us to be so But suppose it that Sempronius comes to me and Preacheth to me many new unheard of things and tells me that he was sent from God to declare them to me I say in this Case no Man is bound to believe Sempronius unless by some cogent demonstration he proves himself to have been thus sent by God But Secondly This calling is ordinary to wit that which is not immediately from God but mediately by the intervention of mens will and authority deriv'd from God and this calling is twofold First Internal which consists in this that he who desires to be chosen or admitted into this Holy and Religious Negotiation should seriously and sincerely examine himself and his Talents and look into the most inward recesses of his mind and at last determine himself to have this inward aptitude all things consider'd for the work of the Ministry so that he may Spontaneously offer himself up to God for no Man ought to be admitted into Holy Orders against his will Secondly This calling is external made by those who preside over the Church which consists in this First That the Overseers of the Church should approve the Mans gifts and qualifications for the work publickly Secondly After they have according to the Apostolical Canons and Rules delivered in the Scripture known and approved such a Man to be fit for the Ministry that they then impose hands on him in a Solemn manner initiate him in Holy Orders and Communicate to him the Spiritual Authority first given them by Christ For we say that without such a calling as this no Man can be a Lawful Minister And as for the necessity of this calling none of the Ancient Hereticks of the Primitive Church ever deny'd it and the Anabaptists born in High Germany were the first who deny'd it as is clear out of Sleidans Commentarys And for this you may see the Gangraena Theologiae Anabaptisticae per Johan Clâ—ppenburgium This opinion of theirs was afterward own'd by Socinus as appears out of his Epistola tertia ad Math. Raderium where he saith p. 126. Jam vero verbi Dei Administratio quae ad Ecclesiam Colligendam Constituendamque requiritur nulli certae Familiae nulli eligendi rationi aut Successioni alligata eâ—t And he giveth his judgment in the like manner concerning the Lords Supper that it is not necessary to be given by a Minister But many Arguments might be brought from the Scripture to support the contrary truth I shall here refer to the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews c. 5. v. 4. And no Man taketh this honour to him but he that is called
suffer no Hierarchical Ministers to come or pray with him but desir'd and had only Presbyterians about him Mr. Reynel signifying this to Mr. Roswel desires him to enquire the truth of this and signifie it to him whereupon he consults Mr. Pullen of Magdalen Hall who was my Lord's Houshold Chaplain with him in all his Sickness and at his Death and he assured him that the said Bishop as he liv'd so he died a true Son of the Church of England that no Presbyterian came near him in all his Sickness that besides his own Prayers private to himself there were in his Family no Prayers save those of the Church nor any but his own Chaplain to read them Besides Mr. Pullen gave him a part of the Bishop's last Will wherein within less than a Month before he died he gives an account of his thoughts in opposition to Papists and Puritans and this Sermon being the last which the Bishop writ with his own hand at the importunity of Mr. Roswel Dr. Sanderson permitted it to be printed to vindicate his Father's Honour and Judgment and to confute that lying Report and so that lie occasion'd the publishing this Truth Aâ—iquisque Malo fuit usus in illo Ita est Tho. Barlow Collegii Reginalis Praeses BUT partly because it may sufficiently confound the before mentioned Calumny against Bishop Sanderson and partly because his Religionary Professions in his last Will and Testaments contains somewhat like Prophetical matter in his mentioning his belief of the happy future state of our Church in a Conditional manner it is thought fit to print that part of his Will that concerneth the same as the same was lately faithfully transcribed out of his Will now remaining in the Registry of the Prerogative Court in London viz. AND here I do profess that as I have lived so I do desire and by the grace of God resolve to die in the Communion of the Catholick Church of Christ and a true Son of the Church of England which as it standeth by Law established to be both in Doctrine and Worship agreeable to the word of God is in the most Material points of both conformable to the Faith and Practice of the Godly Churches of Christ in the Primitive and purer times I do firmly believe this led so to do not so much from the force of Custom and Education to which the greatest part of Mankind owe their particular different perswasions in point of Religion as upon the clear evidence of truth and Reason after a serious and impartial examination of the grounds as well of Popery as Puritanism according to that measure of understanding and those opportunities which God hath afforded me And herein I am abundantly satisfied that the Schism which the Papists on the one hand and the superstition which the Puritans on the other hand lay to our charge are very justly chargeable upon themselves respectively Wherefore I humbly beseech Almighty God the Father of Mercies to preserve this Church by his Power and Providence in Truth Peace and Godliness evermore unto the Worlds end Which doubtless he will do if the wickedness and security of a sinful People and particularly those Sins that are so rife and seem daily to increase among us of Vnthankfulness Riot and Sacriledge do not tempt his Patience to the contrary And I also humbly further beseech him that it would please him to give unto our Gracious Soveraign the Reverend Bishops and the Parliament timely to consider the great dangers that visibly threaten this Church in point of Religion by the late great increase of Popery and in point of Revenue by Sacrilegious Enclosures and to provide such wholsome and effectual Remedies as may prevent the same before it be too late The Substance of a Letter written by the same late Pious and Learned Prelate Bishop Barlow to the Clergy of his Diâ—cess upon occasion of an Order of the Quarter Sessions for the County of Bedford held at Ampthill in the said County in the 36th Year of the Reign of the late King Charles the Second Annoque Dom. 1684. For the prosecution of the Laws against Dissenters ALL the Compliance our moderate Spirited Prelate could be brought to in reference to that sharp Order was only in this Letter to represent to his Clergy That since it is an evident Truth that all Subjects both by the indispensable Law of Nature and Scripture are obliged to obey the power establish'd over them by God and that most particularly in things more immediately relating to the great and important Concerns of God's Glory and the Salvation of their own Souls and that by the Prudent and Pious Care of our Government a Godly Form and Liturgy of God's Publick Worship had been provided and establish'd both by our Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws which accordingly require all people to resort to their respective Parish Churches and to communicate there with the Congregation in Prayers Receiving the Sacrament and hearing the word And since the said Liturgy had not only been for many years received by our Church with little or no opposition till the late unfortunate times of Rebellion and Confusion but had been likewise approved and commended by the most Learned and Pious Divines in Foreign Protestant Churches and so religiously priz'd and esteem'd by the Renowned Protestant Martyrs in Queen Mary's days that one of their greatest Complaints was that they were deprived of the Benefit of that Liturgy-Book and that since the rejection of it and the disobeying the Laws that injoyn it makes our Dissenters evidently Schismatical in their separation from our Church-Communion as shall says he if God please be in convenient time made further to appear and that for those Reasons it was not only convenient but necessary that our good Laws should be executed both for the preservation of the publick Peace and Vnity and the Benefit even of the Dissenters themselves for that afflictio dat intellectum and it was probable their Sufferings by the execution of our just Laws and the blâ—ssing of God upon them might bring them to a sense of their duty and a desire to perform it Therefore for the attaining of those good ends he requires all his said Clergy of his Diocess within the abovesaid County to publish the above mentioned Order the next Sunday after it should be tendred them and diligently to advance the design of it according to the several particular Directions in the said Order prescribed and both by Preaching and Catechising to take away all excuses for their ignorance to instruct their People in their Duty to God and their King with his Prayer for a Blessing upon their Endeavours in which he concludes this Letter signing himself Their Affectionate Friend Brother and Diocesan Thomas Lincoln FINIS Books newly published printed for John Dunton at the Raven in the Poultrey THe History of the Famous Edist of Nantes containing an account of all the Persecutions which in France have befallen those Protestants who