Sancta Romana 3. where we have a long Catalogue of Authentick and Apoc. Books made by Pope Gelatius and his Council of 70 Bishops 494. the Canon (b) Vid. Crab. Concil Tom. 1. p. 991. Concil per Labbâ— Par. 1671. Tom 4. 1259 1260 1261. Surius Concil Tom. 2. p. 318. of that Council we have elsewhere better than in Gratian in Canon and Council they call some things Canon or Anthentick which they damn now as Apocryphal and so do we too and other things they approve as Authentick which now neither they nor we approve Vid. Johan de Turre Cremata in his Can. 15 16. Glossas especially the late (c) Editionis Par. 1612. 1618. ones where to reconcile the contradictions of this Canon and Council to the present Opinions of Rome they are glad to say that this Canon is so much corrupted (d) Toto hoc Canone tot modis distant ab Originali ut satis certo statui non possit quae vera sit Gelasii Lectio Nota ad verbum mandamus Can. 3. dist 15. in utraque Editione Parisiensi that they cannot tell which words in it are really the words of Gelasius and which not 15. It will be requisite to consult some Writers about the Authority and Use of Fathers c. such as these 1. Dallaeus de usu Patrum extat 1. Gallicè 2. Lat. per Joh. Mettaienum Genevae 1656. Quarto 2. Tractatus de Patrum Conciliorum Traditionum Authoritate in rebus Fidei c. Emenium K. Vyfalrinum cum praefat D. Parei Francofurti 1611. Octavo 3. Tractatus de Patrum Authoritate ad quid c. per Andr. Rivetum praefixus Libro suo quem Criticum Sacrum inscripsit 4. Vid. Gratian. Dist. 9. Glossam à Turre Cremata ibid. multo de Authoritate Scripturae Conciliorum Patrum c. The Socinians grant the Fathers no Authority (a) Totius Mundi praeter Apostolos Authoritas in Religione nulla esi Smalcius in Refutat duorum Lib. Smeglecii de Erroribus Nov. Arriaâ—oâ—um lib. 2. 16. p 225. ibid. p. 223. at all and the Papists are sworn never to expound (b) in Juramâ—nto pâ—ofessio nis Fidei in Concil Trident. Sess 24. de Reformat in Caicâ— câ—p 12. Edit Ant. 1633. Scripture but secundum unanim Patrum Consensum but very little and when they make against them none at all as we may see by Cajetan (c) Who allows an Exposition of Scripture tho' contra Torrentem Patrum ad Comment in 1. Genes Feuardentius (d) Feuardeâ—tius says If all were left out of the Fathers which we now believe not Bona pars Scriptorum Patrum periret Feuardentius in Iraenaeum p. 494. ad Lectorem Maldonatus (e) Maldonat in cap. 6. Joh. p. 1487. who tells us it was the Opinion of Augustin and Innocentius first that it was necessary to communicate Infants (f) Augustini Innocentii sententia sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia ibid. 116. p. 1488. and that August delivered this non ut Opinionem suam sed ut Fidei totius Ecclesia Dogma and that this Opinion prevailed in the Church about 600 years and yet denied now Historici Eccles 16. For the better understanding Scripture and Fathers the knowledge of Ecclesiastical History will be necessary such as these 1. As have writ general Comprehensions and Epitomes of Ecclesiastical Histories for instance 1. Timanni Gesselii Historia Sacra ordine Chronologico compendiosè digesta a Mundo condito ad Annum Christi 1125. Trajecti ad Rhenum 1659. Vol. 1. Quarto 2. Joh. Cluverii Historiarum totius Mundi Epitome ab origine Mundi ad An. Christi 1633. Lugd. Bat. 1639. Vol. 1. Quarto 2. Such as have writ Ecclesiastical History anciently and more fully As 1. Eusebii Hist Eccles cum Notis Hen. Valesii Par. 1659. 2. Socrates Sozomen per eundem Par. 1668. 3. Theodoreti Evagrii Philostorgii Theodori Hist per eundem Par. 1673. These give an account of Church-Affairs for almost 600 years And if Ruffinus his two Books of Ecclesiastical History by Ben. Laurentius de la Barre Par. 1580. And the Historia Tripartita composed by Cassiodore and published by B. Rhenanum Basil 1528. be added it may be compleat and facilitate the understanding of the forementioned Histories 3. Such as have writ lately but most fully Ecclesiastical History As 1. Historia Eccles per Centuriatores Mageleburgicos Basil 1624. 2. Or the Epitome of it in 7 Vol. Quarto by Lucas Osiander Tubing 1607. 3. Annal. Eccles Baronii a Nato Christo ad 1197. Continuati à Provio ad Annum 1431. a Spondano ad 1646. Not. de his Annal. 1. Quod ex Editionibus omnibus illam Ant. 1612. solam correctissimam agnoscit Baronius (a) Baronius in Lteris Chriâ— Plantino latis quae extan in Calce Tom. 10 Edit Ant. 1611. Monet Lectrem omne illua esse Adulteruâ— Spuriun quod Editio Dictae non est Consentatanum Besidâ—s Baroniuâ— we may consult Rob. Saliani Annales Eccles Vet. Test Tom. 8. Colon. 1620. in Fâ—lâ— Notand extat Epitome Annal. Card. Baronii per Ludov. Aurelium Octav. Monasterii 1638. 2. v. There were three or four former Editions 2. Even in this best Edition 1612. in the 4 5 6 7 Tomes the number of the Paragraphs are left out whether this omission of these numbers was Casu or Concilio I know not but sure I am that unless those numbers be supply'd by the Pen and writ in the Margent Quotations cannot without great trouble be found in those four Tomes which want them 3. Before those Annals of Baron be used the most Learned (b) Contra Casaubonum pro Baron scripseruit 1. Herebertus Rosweidus Lib. Cui Titulus Lex Talionis c. Quarto Ant. 1614. 2. Audreas Eudaemon Johannes Quarto Colon. 1617. Convi iis fortitèr sed Argumentis frigidè contra Casaub agunt Vid. ad Trebbechorii Exercitat ad Annales Baronii ubi desiit Cafanbonus Edit Kibonii 1673. in Qâ—arto Exercitations of Casaubon upon them will be of infinite use to discover the many Errours of that Annalist 4. And it must be remembred that Baronius studio partium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not only zealous but every where factious in maintaining the Popes Prerogatives and all the received Errors and Superstitions of that Church and on the other side the Centuriators are in some things a little too strait lac d so that the truth many times lies between them so that an impartial Reader of their stories by collections of what they have said and the Grounds why they did so may find that Truth which they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either could not or would not acknowledge 4. Two Historians more I would commend for understanding the state of Religion since Luther both persons of great Moderation and Fidelity tho of different Religions and writ what they might and did know 1. John Sleidani Comment de
Councils at Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon c. Oecumenical or General Councils 'T is granted we commonly call them so But then the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies the World must be taken as many times it is not for the whole World absolutely nor for the whole Christian World but as it is in the (a) Luk. 2.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gospel for the Roman World there came a Decree says Luke from Augustus that all the World should be Taxed that is all the Empire or Roman World for he neither did nor could Tax any out of his own Empire and Jurisdiction And on this account I take it for certain and I am sure it is so that there never was any Council more than Imperial and so none truly Oecumenical and therefore none so much as pretended to be infallible And hence it follows that the Christian Church never had any infallible Guide because no such Council as they pretend is their Guide 5. The Church of Rome has has no just pretence io Infallibility 5. And yet further the Church of Rome which only pretends to Infallibility has no not so much as probable ground for that pretence That this may appear I say 1. It is confess'd that no Church Rome excepted has any just ground to pretend to infallibility 2. And I say that the Church of Rome has no more reason or ground to pretend to infallibility than the Church at Jerusalem Antioch Smyrna or Philadelphia nay than the Church of Paris Madrid or Oxford For 1. It is certain that no Church is per se ex naturâ suâ c. by its natural Constitution Infallible and therefore the Infallibility of the Church if there be any must necessarily proceed from the promises of God in Christ to give Grace and assistance to preserve her from errour So that such Promises only can be a just ground of such infallibility Now the Church of Rome has no more promise of such assistance than the Churches above-named or any other Christian Church in the World This will I believe seem strange to those who have irrationally inslaved their understandings to believe without and against reason that the Popish Church is infallible only because she says so However it will concern them to seek and find such promise made to Rome in Scripture for 't is in vain to seek it elsewhere and if they find no such promise as I say and am sure they cannot then they may be sure too that their Popish Church having no such promise is not infallible If any who thinks otherwise can and will produce such promise of Infallibility made to Rome more than to any other Church I who should think my self happy to have an Infallible Guide shall with all gratitude and speed become his Proselyte In the mean time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is best to continue Protestant till better proofs be produc'd for their pretended Infallibility least otherwise we should mistake a Planet for a fixed Star and which will neither warm or direct us an ignis fatuus for true fire certainly no rational and considering person who has a due care of his Soul and Salvation will follow Rome as an Infallible Guide till he be which never can be well assured that she is so 2. It is certain that admitting a General Council to be a Guide infallible and the Trent-Synod to have been such a Council both which are demonstratively false I say both these admitted the Church of Rome neither at present hath nor for above an hundred years last past had any more Infallible Guide than we Protestants nor probably is ever like to have For it is certain the Trent-Council ended Anno (a) Vide Bullam Pii Papae 4. super declarat temporis ad observand Decreta Concil Trident. dat Romae 1564. 1563. and since that time there has been none nor the divided State of Christendom considered is any like to be Especially if we consider what all know that the Popes who pretend a sole right to call Councils who most needs Reformation come to Councils as an old Bear to a Stake where they are sure to be well pull'd and baited Now is it not ridiculous and irrational to tell us that we are in a dangerous condition wanting our Infallible Guide to end our Controversies when they have none to end their own Some Differences and Controversies we have nor was the Church of God ever free from them no not in the Apostles times when there were Judges indeed Infallible but they have more and greater witness that (b) See the Journal of Monsieur de S. Amour concerning the Propositions controverted between the Jansenists and Jesuits c. great and notwithstanding the Pope's Definition yet undecided Controversie between the Jansenists and Molinists that about the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary not yet determin'd nay after two Kings of Spain (c) Vide Legat. Philipi 4. 4. Reg. Hispaniae ad Paul 5. Greg. 15. per Luc. Maddingum c. had with great expence and solicitation importun'd two Popes to determine it yet neither they nor the Trent-Council did nor dar'd determine it Witness also that greater Controversie between the Church and Kingdom of France and the Jesuits and Court of Rome about the Pope's Supremacy Infallibility c. In all six propositions believed at Rome defended by the Jesuits and Canonists and derided (d) Vide Arrâ—st de la 〈◊〉 de Perlâ—ment du Mar 163â— at Paris both by the Sorbone and Parliament there Once more that great and fundamental Controversie in the Church of Rome even about this Infallible Guide we are now speaking of whether it be the Pope alone or the Council alone or both together c. or who it is I say this Controversie is not yet determin'd Now is it not ridiculous to tell us of our danger and importune us to be of your Church on pretence of an Infallible Guide to solve and satisfie our Doubts and end our Differences When we evidently see that your own Differences are greater and more than ours Whence we conclude as well we may that either you have no Infallible Guide or if you have then he does not declare and give his Definition for truth or if he do you disobey it because we see your Differences continue So that in this the Church of Rome is like that pitiful Mountebank who said he had an excellent Remedy to cure a Cough and yet coughed himself grievously even while he told it for some he had and so may Rome so simple and easie to believe him 6. 6. The Councilâ— which â—â—e Church of Rome approves and calls General in many things erroneous and impious I say faâ—ther that some of those Councils which the Church of Rome approves and receives as General Councils are so far from being Infallible that they are actually false and in their Decrees and Definitions Erroneous and Impious for
(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.
to which you refer me I must to this Query say 1. That I find not any Commentary of Calvin tho' he has writ on the Pentateuch on that Verse or Chapter 2. The Jews Rabbies even Maimonides the most Learned of them as Ainsworth on that place tells you expound that place of all the Inhabitants which were guilty of Idolatry both the Seducers and Seduced but none else Only the goods of those in the City who were not Idolatees were to be burnt as well as the goods of the Idolaters 3. When you inquire of Luther's Judgment on the same Text I can only say 1. That Luther has not writ any Commentary on Deuteronomy 2. Whether he do occasionally explain that Text in any of his other Works I do not remember 3. For putting the Hereticks to death as such that is meerly as Hereticks 1. The Donatists in St. Augustin's time first put those to death which did not consent to their Opinions 2. The Papists universally agree in this that Hereticks that is all who do not believe as they do must be put to death 3. Calvin and the Senate of Geneva put (a) Vide Calvinum Libro in Servetum scripto in Commentariis in Titum Servetus an Arrian to death And Beza (b) Inter Opera Bezae Tâ—m 1. pag. 85. Edit Genevae 1582. justifies the fact in his Tract De Haereticis à Magistratu puniendis where he cites Melanchton Bullinger Capito and many more Protestants who he says were of the same Opinion 4. But the Church of England did never put any Papists to death though Hereticks and Idolaters and it is publickly affirmed and justified in a Book called Justitia Legum Anglicarum c. And for my part I should not be willing that any Heretick should be punished with death unless he joyn with his Heresie blasphemy of God or disloyalty against the King or some sins against the Law of Nature evidently punishable by the Civil Magistrate for the preservation of the Publick Peace and Safety of the Common-wealth I am Sir Your most obliged faithful Friend and Servant Thomas Lincolne Buckden Feb. 26. 1628. Bishop Sanderson 5. ad Populum 1 Tim. 4.3 4 5. 3. Commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with Thanksgiving c. 4. For every Creature of God is good and not to be refused if it be received with Thanksgiving 5. For it is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer FOR the real and true meaning of this passage of the Apostle 't is evident he condemns two Errors in those Apostates from the Faith which should appear in the latter days 1. Their forbidding Marriage of which I shall say nothing at present 2. Their commanding to abstain from Meats For this second particular we are further to consider two things 1. What Meats they were from which those Apostates were commanded to abstain and the Text tells us that it was Meats which God had created to be received or eaten with Thanksgiving 2. The ground or occasion why the Apostle condemns this in the Apostates is because every Creature of God is good and not to be refused if received or eaten with Thanksgiving Now the most Judicious Bishop Sanderson my dear deceased Friend from this general ground that EVERY Creature of God is good seems to infer that there are no Creatures in the World excepted but every one might be received or eaten with Thanksgiving Now this consequence seems to me not good nor rational nor is it possible to conclude the lawfulness of the use of every Creature from the goodness of it in it self and for those ends for which by the infinite power and wisdom of God they were created For 't is most certain that every Creature without an exception is good but then it will not follow that every Creature without an exception may lawfully be received and used for meat In the Text the Apostle condemns the Apostates from the Faith for commanding to abstain from meats which God created to be received or eaten This was their Errour and Tyranny to forbid men the use of those Creatures for their food which God had created and given them for that very use and end 3. And upon this ground it is that the 4th verse neither is nor can be meant universally that every Creature of God without exception is good and not to be refused if received with Thanksgiving but with this limitation every Creature which God hath created to be received with Thanksgiving is good and not to be refused for otherwise if the proposition be taken universally 't is evidently untrue for when the Apostle writ the first Epistle to Timothy there were many Creatures which tho' good in themselves and for the end they were made were never created by God for Man's food and nourishment nor were to be received with Thanksgiving nor could be sanctified by Prayer I instance in 1. Venenatis 2. Prohibitis 1. In Venenatis it is certain that amongst God's Creatures which are all good both in themselves and for the ends for which they were created there were included Serpents Rattle-Snakes c. which are venemous and to humane Nature pernicious which were never created for Man's food nor to be received with Thanksgiving nor to be sanctified by Prayer 2. In Prohibitis 't is also certain that when the Apostle writ this Epistle to Timothy there werh several of God's good Creatures which by Divine Law were prohibited to be receiv'd at all and therefore not to be receiv'd or eaten That this may appear 1. 'T is generally agreed that St. Paul writ this Epistle Anno Christi 52. when that Excellent person Bishop Sanderson thinks that by the liberty our blessed Saviour had purchas'd for us every Creature of God was good and might without sin or scruple of Conscience be receiv'd with Thanksgiving 2. 'T is also generally agreed that the Decree of the Apostles Act. 15.28 29. was made Anno Christi 50 or 51. secundum computationem veram wherein things offered to Idols blood and things strangled are expresly forbid to the Gentile Christians and therefore might not be receiv'd and eaten Anno Christi 52. when St. Paul writ that Epistle being by a Divine Law prohibited a little before Anno Christi 50 or 51 The Obligation of which Law continued long after the time of St. Paul's writing to Timothy as appears by express Texts 1. Act. 21.25 By what James Bishop of Jerusalem tells St. Paul which was Anno Christi 58. So that then notwithstanding that every Creature of God was good yet neither things offered to Idols nor blood nor things strangled could lawfully be eaten 2. Revel 2.14 20. Where eating things offered to Idols is by our blessed Saviour condemned as a sin which was 45 years after St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy which was Anno Christi 52. and St. John Anno Christi 97. To say nothing of the Universal Consent of the Christian World for above
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
apud Franc. Jover pag. 44 45. Sect. 1. Class 2. and Concil Carthag Ann. 418. Imp. Honor. 12. and Theod. Coss Can. 112 113. apud Justell in Cod. Can. Eccles Afric pag. 294 and Hist Pelag. Voss part 2. lib. 3. Thes c. And to each of these Reasons he subjoyns ample and learned Illustrations and confirmatory proofs and so after a short Reflection of Christian Commiseration upon the unhappy condition of the Church in these latter times in that such Disputes as these should arise among any Christians and especially among Protestants and a pious wish that they were all laid asleep he concludes with this modest and generous Protestation That if any person shall with that meekness and civility that becomes a Man and much more a Christian candidly and rationally answer that his Discourse by evidently overthrowing his Reasons and firmly proving the truth of his own he should be so far from being angry with him that he should thank God and him for shewing him his Errour and publickly acknowledge himself to be his Disciple and Proselyte A Young Man being Converted from Popery to Protestancy and being tempted by some Romish Emissaries to return again to their Faith by amusing him with many Sophisticate notions of their Church having an Infallible Guide Dr. Barlow being about the Year 1673. apply'd to to write somewhat that might Confirm the young Man in his choice of the Protestant Religion he wrote the following Paper by means whereof the Convert remain'd unmov'd and unshaken in that Religion THat the Romanists Position concerning their Infallibity is impious and without any real ground irrational That such a pretended Infallible Guide is not necessary nor since the Apostles death ever was in the World 1. Impious 1. They make themselves the sole and (a) una Ecclesia Romana vera duntaxat est Ecclesia una Fides c. Per honorat Fabri lib. 2. prop. 7. pa. 123. only true Church in the World and miscall themselves (b) Ecclesia Romana errare non potest Ibid. pag. 120. Infallible and then with a most unchristian and uncharitable censure deny Salvation to any but themselves and so (a) In Ecclesiâ duntaxat Romanâ homines salvari possunt Ib. p. 133. damn the far greater part of the Christian World Thus a late and learned Jesuite Honoratus Fabri in a Book published with all the Licence and Approbation their Church usually gives their best Books and to make it sure that not only the Jesuites but their Church also is of this uncharitable Opinion their Trent-Council has pronounced (b) Haec est vera Catholica fides extra quam nâ—mo salvus esse potest Concil Trident. Sess 24. In Bâ—llâ Pii Papae 4. Super formâ Juramenti professionis fidei Damnation to all those who do not believe their new Creed which themselves excepted no Christian Church in the World ever did or to this day does believe If any Man think otherwise let him make it appear that any Church in the World even Rome her self before the Trent-Council which was but 111 years since had and believed that Creed and I will become his Proselyte 2. But further 2. it is irrational Iâ—rational to perswade or require us or any body else to believe an Infallible Guide when they themselves are not yet agreed who this Infallible Guide is For 1. the Jesuits and Canonists will have the Pope Infallible nay their Canon (c) Sic omnes Apostolicae sedis sanctiones accipiendae sicut ipsius Divini Petri voce firmatae Gratianus Can. sic omnes Dist 9. Law declares and cites the Authority of a Pope for it that the Pope's Decrees are as infallible as St. Peter's and if he succeed him in the University of his Jurisdiction as they say he may with as much reason challenge his Infallibility But this no less than (a) Concil Pisanum Anno 1409. Constantin Anno 1414. Basiliense Ann. 1438. Vide Concil Pisanum Sess 14. Constani Sess 12. Basiliens Sess 34. three of their own General Councils before Luther peremptorily deny and all of them deposed Popes as Simoniacal Schismatical Perjured Heretical c. The Fathers of those Councils were it seems well acquainted with their Holy Fathers the Popes and so could and did call them by their right names And the Church and State of France does likewise damn the Doctrine of the Popes Infallibility and not long since did damn it publickly both in the (b) May. 3. 1663. So Pope John the 2â—th tells us that the council of Constance was Concilium Sanctissimum quod errare non potuit vide Constant Sess 12. Mediolani 1511. p. 11. Col. 2. Sorbone and Parliament of Paris the King's Advocate Mr. Talon making a long and Eloquent Speech to that purpose 2. Many would have a General Council to be Supream Judge and so if any be so Infallible This the three General Councils but now named unanimously define as all know who knows them This the Canonists the Jesuites the Court of Rome the Pope and his Parasites universally deny and think it if not an Heresie yet a great Error 3. Others therefore will have the Pope and Council joyned to be the Infallible Guide 4 And lastly others deny the Decrees of the Pope and Council to have any such Infallible Certainty 'till they be received by the Church diffusive France notwithstanding any pretended Infallibility never would nor did receive all the Decrees of the Council of Basil or Trent and 't is notorious that the Popish Writers tell us of General Councils whereof 1. (a) Long. a Coriolano sex Card. Bellarmino in Principio summae Coliorum 1. Concilia gen approbata 2. Reprobata 3. partim approbata parti reprobata 4. nec approbatum nec reprobatum Concilium Pisanum Some approved 2. Some rejected 3. Some partly approved and partly rejected 4. One that at Pisanum 1409. neither approved nor rejected If General Councils he infallible why are any or any part of them rejected And if they be not Infallible then 't is evident they cannot be an Infallible Guide hence I inferr 1. That it is Irrational to tell us they have an Infallibe Guide when they themselves are not agreed nor do nor can tell us who it is For admit some of those named the Pope or Council or both together or the Church Diffusive were Infallible yet 'till I can be assured which of them it is none of them can be an Infallibe Guide to me so that I may with certainty and safety rely on the determination for so long as I doubt of the Guide whether this be he who is Infallible so long I must necessarily doubt of his decree and definition it being impossible that I should yield an undoubted and infallible assent to his Sentence who for ought I know may be as fallible as my self or assent to any conclusion without doubting when the premises for which I give that assent are indeed