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
rights of the People 3. The Elected King at his Inauguration Swears to observe Faithfully those pacta conventa 4. Amongst those Capitulations to which he Swears this is one That if he do not according to his Oath keep those Capitulations then the Archiepscopus Guintisnensis Primate of Poland is privately to admonish him then if he do not mend he is to admonish him more publickly before the great Lords And if he continue incorrigible the Archbishop may send out an Edict to prohibit the Nation to give him Obedience or any part of his Revenue in short to depose him I am Your Affectionate Friend and Servant Thom. Lincolne Coll. Oxon. Aug. 23. 1675. The Bishop being writ to on occasion of a Friends desiring to know whether the Famous saying of Res nolunt malè Administrari of which a Gentleman in London pretends himself to be the Author had not its Origine from Aristotles Metaphisicks to which Venerable Bede in his Philosophical Axiomes refers in his citing the saying his Lordship return'd the following Answer Sir FOR that Axiome of Bede which you mention Entia nolunt malè disponi I have Bedes works and I find amongst his Axiomata Philosophica this Axiome in these words Nolunt entia malè gubernari (b) Beda inter Axiomata Philosophica Tom. Operum 2. pag. 151. litera N. But for the second Book of Aristotles Metaphysicks to which it seems your Book refers there is no such Axiome there Nor any thing that may give any ground for it unless they may relate to one passage in that second Book where speaking of the difficulty to understand some things he says (c) Aristotelis Metaph. lib. 2. cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the cause of that difficulty is not in the things themselves but in us We through the weakness of our understandings may mistake and several Men may have several Opinions of the same things but the nature of the things is fix'd and the same though Men by mistake may think otherwise Whereas you say that there is a Gentleman in your great Town who pretends to be Author of that Axiome I do confess you have in your Town many Errors more impious but hardly more ridiculous For venerable Bede dyed in the Year 735. that is 949. since and Bede as by his Works is evident has that Axiome in terminis so unless that Gentleman be Older than Bede which I believe he is not he cannot be Author of that Axiome I shall say no more save that you may and I hope will believe that I am July 29. 1684. Your Faithful Friend and Servant T. L. A Letter of the Bishop about Natural Allegiance and of Kingly Power being from God and Confuting my Lord Shaftsbury's Speech in the House of Lords for the contrary c. Sir IN your Letter you desire some things of me which jure tuo you may command 1. That I would name to you some of our Divines who have ex professo writ of natural Allegiance To this I would say 1. That what our Lawyers say I doubt not but you well know yet let me commend to your perusal if you have not met with it before Spelmans Glossary who was neither professed Lawyer nor Divine yet a very learned Antiquary and has said some things of Allegiance which are considerable in his last Edition Printed Anno. 1664. under the word Fidelitas For though he have the word Allegiancia in his Glossary yet he has nothing upon it there 2. For Divines it belongs to them to speak of Kings and the Allegiance due to them only so far as they have Scripture for their Rule Now which of our Divines have writ of the Natural Allegiance due to Kings I do not at present remember nor in the extraordinary trouble and business I now am have I time to inquire Sure I am 1. That no Common-wealth or any such popular Government is ever heard of or once nam'd in Scriptures Though the Author of Oceana I think Harrington was his name and his party say That God by Moses Established his People in a Common-wealth But this they say in contradiction 1. To the Learnedst Jews Josephus Philo c. who say it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Government wherein God himself was King a Theocratia or a Divine Monarchy Wherein God himself was King not only in a general way as he is King of all the World but to the Jews particularly as much and as particularly as the Kings of England or Spain are to their Kingdoms For 1. God (a) 1. Sam. 8.7 himself says he was their King 2. And Samuel (b) 2. Sam. 10.19 and 12.12 tells them so too 3. God was a particular Lawgiver to the Jews not so to any other Nation he personally gave them all their Laws 4. He did personally appoint his Viceroys and Deputies Moses Josua c. 5. God did receive all their appeals and personally answered them by Urim c. Again Divines may evidently conclude out of Scripture That Kings and their Royal Power is 1. A Deo jure divino 2. Non a Populo no not in Elective Kingdoms as in Poland for in the Elective Kingdoms designatio personae may be in the People Yet Collat. Authoritatis Regiae est a solo Deo 3. Non a Papa 4. Non a Lege My Lord 〈…〉 House in a long Speech to prove Kings were not jure divino told us that Kings were A lege it was the Law that made them Kings which was Seditious and Ridiculous For I would gladly know who made that Law which made the Kings Certainly the King did not make it for that Law which made the King must of necessity precede and be before the King who had his Royal Power and Kingly Office from that Law Nor was there ever in this Nation any other Power to make such a Law For this Nation so far as we have any History that mentions it was ever Governed by Kings So in the times of the Brittains Romans Saxons Danes and Normans Kingly Government was Established here Sed transeat cum caeteris erroribus I am Sir Your Affectionate Friend and faithful Servant Tho. Lincolne A Letter answering some Queries about Abby-Lands and about the Opinions of Calvin and Luther of the punishing of Hereticks SIR AS to your first Question about the value of Abby-Lands your Calculation is ingenious and if the Revenue was no more than that your Author says the poor Monks had very short Allowance But he who says the whole Revenue of all the Abby-Lands was no more than 261100 l. per Annum is much mistaken for undoubtedly it was far more Weaver in his Antiquities of Canterbury has something of it and Sir William Dugdale in his Monasticon but I neither remember what they say nor have I time to consult them 2. As to your Query What Calvin's Opinion was of burning a whole City for Idolatry in his Commentary on Deut. 13.15
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
Book So he boasts and so adds our Prefacer 't is possible he may believe though he can have but little Reason for it because it is impossible he should have any at all and much less any clear Reason to prove positions so evidently untrue as those he advances upon which occasion our R. Prefacer begs leave by way of Reflection to say 1. That he wonders not that all Popish Writers in general should Rail so Blasphemously against the Bible and so bitterly against Protestants because 't is manifest there are no Christians in the World whose Doctrine is so agreeable to that Holy Book as theirs nor any Book when seriously Read and believed so contrary to and destructive of Popish Principles as that of the Sacred Scriptures for which Reason those Politick Adversaries forbid them to be Read in any Vulgar Tongue by any Unlearned or Unlicensed Person of their Communion the (a) See the Rules drawn up by a Select Committe of Fathers of that Council about prohibited Books and approv'd by Pope Pius IV. at Rule 4. at the end of the Edition of that Council set forth by Phil. L. Abb. at 1667. pag. 233. Trent Fathers with shameless Blasphemy not sticking to Declare that if those Holy Writings tho' inspired by the Holy Ghost as says the Apostle John 20. v. 30 31. should be suffered to be Read Promiscuously by the People in a known Tongue (b) Being the true sense of the words of the said IV. Rule they would do them more mischief than good nay adds he 't is plain they think the Reading of the Gospel in any Vulgar Tongue would be more pernicious to their Religion than the Reading of the Alcoran in the like Tongue because they allow the Reading of the Alcoran but have lately and publickly damn'd not only the Gospels but even their own Missal in French as very well knowing that Divine Truth such as is contianed in the Gospel and sparkles here and there even up and down among the Rubbish of their own Missal as corrupt as 't is is more destructive of Errour than any one Errour is of another 2. When he scurrilously Reviles the King and Parliament by the abuseful Names of Hereticks and Schismaticks our R. Prefacer would fain know what warrant he has from any Law or from Reason or Scripture to Revile any Supream or subordinate Power Ruling over the People such a practice being Condemn'd by the Laws of England which make it High Treason to call our Sovereign (a) 13. Eliz. cap. 1. Heretick or else makes it such a Crime as (b) Stat. 13. Car. 2. cap. 1. and Crooks Reports part 2. pag. 38. incapacitates the offenders from holding any Place Office or Promotion Ecclesiastical Civil or Military besides rendering them liable to other Punishments by the said Laws provided And contrary to the Divine Laws as appears Exod. 22 28. Where God by Moses forbids us to Curse the Ruler of the People no not in our heart adds Solomon Eccles 10.20 Which Mosaical Law St. Paul cites as a Natural and Moral Law still in force under the Gospel Acts 23.5 Which he renders there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shale not speak Evil of the Ruler of thy People to shew us that Moses's Expression of Cursing extends of all manner of Blaspheming or Evil speaking which is further confirm'd by St. Peter though his pretended Vicar has learnt to speak loftier Language who reckons them that speak Evil of Dignities among Capital Sinners 2. pet 2.10 as does also St. Jude v. 8 9. telling us that even Michael the Arch-Angel durst not bring a railing Accusation against the Devil himself Whereas now not only the Pope but every Paultry Popish Pamphleter dares treat Christian Kings and the greatest Protestant Divines worse than St. Michael durst the Arch-Devil he had to deal with As appears by the Excommunication of Hen. 8. by Pope Paul 3. and of Q. Elizabeth by Pius V. Where Luther is called the Foster Son of Perdition the English Clergy Wicked Ministers of Impiety and Henry VIII A Heretick who by the Instigation of the Devil committed Sacriledge for Alienating Abby Lands upon which occasion our Prefacer asks if Hen. VIII were Sacrilegious in Alienating those Lands what was the perpetual Alienation of them confirm'd by Pope Julius III. and Q. Mary and her Popish Parliament and Convocation Vid. Stat. 1. 2. Mariae cap. 8. And for one other Instance of their skill in Rayling Rhetorick he cites the Bull of the Canonization of Ignatius Loyola Dated at Rome 8th of the Ides of August i. e. the 6th of August 1623. Sect. 1. Where Luther is called a most pernicious and detestable plaguy Monster Monstrum Teterrimum Detestabilis pestis being the very words of that Bull. Upon which our Prefacer proceeds to tell us That though he thinks that none but such who are hardened by strong delusion to believe a Lye can possibly believe That the Protestant Religion is Heresie or Heathenism or that 't is Ridiculous or Idolatrous or again that the Protestant Clergy are Antichristian Ministers of Satan Enemies of God and Ministers of Baal as the Popish Rabshakers pretend yet he thinks that those who can against all the brightest Evidence of sense and reason believe Transubstantiation and swallow Contradictions may also by a strong Roman-Catholick Faith believe all the abovesaid Falsities and by that belief be animated with a blind fury to murder all those whom they are taught so to miscall and esteem as is abovesaid and to believe that action to be good and just and to be warranted by the Authority of Elijah and the Example of the Jews who in obedience to his orders slew all the Priests and Worshippers of Baal to whom the Papists compare the Protestant Clergy and People And therefore that as the Authority of Elijah in quality of a Prophet Divinely inspired was both Encouragement and Warrant enough to those Jews to do what they did so the Authority of the Pope and Council being believed by the Papists to be Infallible and assisted by the Holy Ghost and being never wanting to incite them to the like bloody Execution of those they shall please to brand for Hereticks as often as a proper opportunity hpapens What can restrain them from such attempts against us For what surer or greater warrants can Men of their Principles have of the Justice of their Actings than the Synodical Decree of their Pope and Council which they believe Supream and Infallible and to which they are taught to give such an absolute Obedience that they durst not do otherwise but readily execute them without the least disputing though never so repugnant to their own sense and reason Which that our Prefacer may not seem to advance precariously he manifestly proves by the Rules and Directions given them how they are taught exactly to fulfil that grand Precept of their Church viz. To believe as she believes of which he inserts two cited out of
justification of Abraham the Father of the faithful and all his Sons are justified in his likeness The Works of the Ceremonia and Judicial Law were in his Justification excluded for there was then neither of those Laws But the Apostle in Rom. 3. doth exclude the works of the Moral Law in the Business of Justification Yet in ver 31. of that Chapter 't is said Do we then make void the Law through Faith God forbid Yea we establish the Law But now the Ceremonial Law is not established by Faith for it is abrogated Moreover others of those Writers tell us That our first Justification is by Faith but our second Justification is by Works But what they call by that Second is Sanctification and not Justification And some of them say we are justified by the Works of the Moral Law but not by those Works ' which go before Faith but those which follow it and spring out of it But we say That Believers sin afterward and so cannot be justified by any Works afterward Their Good Works after Faith are imperfect And if we should suppose they were not yet those Good Works which follow Faith cannot satisfie God for any sins committed before it And for one Sin committed before Faith God may justly condemn a Man though he be holy afterward For every man doth owe God full Obedience to the utmost of his power in every moment of his time See Pauli Testardi Synopsin naturae gratiae who acutely and well handles the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Thesi 194. Imperium pot stâ—tis Supremae non solâ—m civilia sed sacra Complectitur POtestas here is not taken for power in the Abstract but in the Concrete for the Person who hath this power vested in him Thus the word is used in Lucan Discubuere Reges Majorque Potestas Caesar adest So St. Austin useth it De verbis Domini in Matth. Serm. 6. Si aliud Imperator aliud Deus jubeat Major potestas est Deus So S. Paul takes it in the 13th of the Romans where the Persons are clearly brought in claiming obedience as the higher powers Now as to these Persons having power in things Sacred we are to consider things as Sacred in a double manner 1. Ex Naturâ suâ So God and every Person in the Trinity is Holy Not by the force of any Law or Institution but of themselves and their own Nature And of such Sacred things we do not speak 2. Some things are Sacred ex Instituto Divino So under the Law the Priests Tabernacle and first Fruits were Holy and things Consecrated to God 3. Some things are Sacred ex instituto humano and these are things which are not so in their own Nature but are so by the intervening of Authority And such things according to the Civil and Canon Law are 1. Tempora Sacra as dies fasti and solemn Seasons for some weighty Causes Consecrated to God 2. Holy places as Temples 3. Personae Sacrae as Ministers of the Gospel 4. Res Sacrae As Holy Vessels Vestments the Revenues of the Church and things Dedicated to God Things are said to be Sacred if they are separated from a Profane to a Sacred use So R. David Kimchi on Isa 56.2 Diem Sanctificare est à profanis usibus separare And the Holiness of any thing is effectively as from its productive Principle by the Action of him who did separate it from a profane use to the use of the Church and by giving it transferr'd his Propriety to God But formally it consists in the Habitude and Relation which it hath to God its Possessor and to Holy Uses namely of the Church and to Holy ends the Glory of God and good of Men. So that these things have no absolute or inherent Holiness in them but only a relative one Now we say that the Supreme Power doth intra ambitum suum take in these things This is proved by Grotius in a Book by him Writ for that purpose which may be consulted as likewise Hooker in the 8th Book of his Ecclesiastical Policy and Paraeus on the 13th of the Romans And here we affirm first that Sacra Tempora are subject to the higher Powers But Times are Holy in respect either of Divine or Humane Institution 1. Of Divine as the Sabbath and such Days were appointed by God under the Old Testament And the Magistrate had no power to alter such Times nor suffer any so to do This is clear out of Eusebius on the Life of Constantine the Great the Theodosian Code and the Novels And so as to other Festivals The Maccabees made some solemn Festivals to be observed At the Observation of which Christ was present St. John 10.22 And as to things given to God they cannot be alienated The expression of giving things to God is used 1 Chron. 29. And in the Charters where the Religious use of things is specify'd the Style is Concessimus Deo Now the propriety by such Donations is in a special manner transmitted to God So Sacerdos is call'd in Scripture a Man of God And the Temple set apart for him the House of God And Christ calls it so My House is called the House of Prayer And the Sabbath is called the Lord's Sabbath the first Day of the Week the Lord's Day The Propriety is according to all Laws transfer'd to the Donatarius See for this the 167th Rule of Law in the Digests de Regulis Juris non videntur data quae eo tempore quo dantur accipientis non â—iunt And here we say that the Chief Magistrate hath no power to alter things wherein God is the Proprietary Quod meum est sine facto meo ad alium transferri non potest saith the Rule of Law But yet we say that Imperium potestatis supremae sacras personas actiones sacras Complectitur For First Sacred Persons may be considered as Members of the Commonwealth and so they are all subject to the higher Powers And Secondly As Members of a Church and so they are subject too to those Powers even in Ecclesiastical things However the Papists deny this to prop up the Supreme power of their Popes But here we must consider that in Ecclesiastical Persons there is a twofold Power 1. The Power of Order which by their Function they have to Preach God's Word Administer the Sacraments and confer Orders And this Power is wholly Spiritual and derived to Holy Persons from Christ independently on any Secular Power This Power Christ gave to his Apostles and they to others whether Secular Powers would or no So that the Secular Magistrate cannot be said to Confer this Power nor to exercise the proper Acts of it Nor can he Ordain a Presbyter or give the Sacrament But yet even as to this Power Sacred Persons may be said thus Magistratui subjacere First As he may compel them to do their Duties and to execute their Spiritual Functions if they are remiss Secondly As
of God as was Aaron Now this is to be meant of every Priesthood and not only of the Levitical one For Christs Priesthood was no Levitical one yet he was call'd to it But they will say no Man is now called as Aaron was and therefore by that Rule there should be now no Priest For no Man is now called immediately by God as Aaron was I Answer those words Sicut Aaron do note the Principium vocationis respectu Substantiae namely that every calling that was Lawful should be made by God as the calling of Aaron was not in respect of the manner of the calling in every Circumstance For First Christ himself was not so called Secondly Not every Successour of Aaron was so call'd For it is manifest that his Successours had not an immediate call from God as he had Thus therefore the place may be understood As the Successours of Aaron were call'd as truly by God as Aaron was so the Ministers of the Gospel at this day are call'd by God as truly as the Apostles were though they are not call'd immediately by God as were the Apostles Moreover Ministers are stiled the Embassadours of Christ and therefore must have a call to that Office And it is impossible that all Men should be Embassadours For to whom should they be sent An 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sit licita A Thing is said to be Lawful two ways First Ex imperio Legis mandato and so that may be said to be Lawful which is Commanded as to Love God and our Neighbour c. Secondly Ex permissa legis So that is Lawful which is not prohibited The Stoicks were of Opinion that they were permitted by Law to kill themselves as appears out of the Writings of Seneca and Epictetus They look'd on Life as a banquet from which any Man might rise when he had his fill and go his way Nor is killing one's self held absolutely Unlawful by the Canon Law For thus we have it in Gratian Decr. part 2. cauâ— 23. Q. 5. Can. placuit Placuit ut qui sibi ipsis vo untariè quolibet modo mortem violentam inferrent nulla prorsus pro ipsis in oblatione Commemoratio fiat neque cum Psalmis eorum Cadavera ad sepulturam deducantur For this was by way of punishment imposed on them Canone 34. Concilii Bacharensis from whence Gratian borrow'd it But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not in all Cases held unlawful by Gratian. For thus he tells us there Canone non est nostrum and referring to Hierom on the 1. Chapter of Jonah Non est nostrum mortem arripere sed allatam ab aliis libenter ferre Vnde in Persecutionibus non licet propriâ perire manu absque eo ubi Castitas periclitatur sed percutienti colla submittere By the Civil Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is forbidden L. Siquis ff De poenis § miles Miles qui sibi manus intulit nec factum peregit nisi impatientiâ doloris aut morbi luctusve alicujus vel aliâ causâ fecerit capite pumendus est Alià s cum ignominiâ mittendus est So that the endeavour to kill one's self is punishable by the Civil Law But in the next place I shall say that the Question is not whether Killing one's self be forbidden by the positive Laws of God and Man but whether it be intrinsically evil as forbidden by the Law of Nature as well as Scripture And first we say 't is forbidden by the Law of God Gen. 9.5 6. And surely your blood of your Lives will I require at the hand of every Beast will I require it and at the hand of Man c. whoso sheddeth Man's Blood by Man shall his Blood be shed c. So that Homicide is only lawful for those who are vested with Authority And all Men are either Subjects or such who have Supream Authority But to neither of these is power granted to Kill themselves First Not to Subjects For the power of Life and Death is vested alone in the Chief Magistrate and that Men should be subjects and entrusted with the jus vitae necis are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Subjects cannot justly Kill another Therefore à fortiori they cannot Kill themselves Thou mayest not Kill thy Brother because Natural Charity doth oblige thee to Love him But the same Charity doth oblige thee more strongly to Love thy self For the Law of Nature and right Reason permit thee to take away thy Brother's Life while thou dost necessarily defend thy own But Thirdly We say that the Supream Magistrate hath not power to kill himself He hath the power of Life and Death over his Subjects but not over himself For dominans and is in quem dominatur are relata and dominium is the relation between those terms And it is naturally impossible that one and the same person should supply the place of the relatum and Correlatum and be dominans and Dominatus ille qui habet ille in quem habet Authoritatem especially since the party governing must needs be supposed to have an Authority over the party governed And so it is absurd that one and the same person should be superiour and inferiour to himself and yet be subject to himself But Fourthly We say that no case can happen in which any Man can be supposed to have Authority to kill himself For at the time that any one doth violence to himself either he is innocent or guilty of Death If a Man be innocent then no power no not the Supream can justly put him to Death If he be guilty of Death he may be kill'd but not by himself For who Constituted him a Judge thus over himself Let him shew his diploma for any such authority Moreover Natural Reason doth not allow that any one Man should be Judge Witness and Executioner But further in the next place that Self-killing is not lawful may be thus proved Quod meum non est eousque quo meum non est usurpare vel de co diâ—ponere non possum sine consensu ejus cujus interest But my Life is not ex asse and absolutely my own For according to Tully partem parentes in me vendicant The Commonwealth and whoever is Supreme in it have a concern in the Lives and Fortunes of their Subjects Interest Reipublicae ne quis re suâ malè utatur and especially his Life Aristotle therefore in the 5th Book of his Ethicks cap. 11. observes that by Self-homicide Men injure the Common-wealth and therefore no marvel that Punishments are appointed to deter men from it We are in this Life as in an Army and must not forsake the Camp without allowance from our General You may consult on this Subject Bartholinus Salon and Ludovicus Molina de Justitiâ jure Tract de homicidio and Balthasar Gomesius Juris-consultus-Toletanus Omne Mendacium est peccatum EVery one hath heard of the common distinction of Lies and the Socinians affirm that mendacium
Printed in Twelves his Lordship sent him the following Answer Page 151 Another Letter to Sir J. B. Page 157 Of Coâ—djutors to Bishops Page 160 Of the Original of Sine Cures c. Page 164 Of Pensions paid out of Church Livings c. Page 171 Another Letter of Annates c. Page 177 A Letter of the vast Subsidy given by the Clergy to Hen. VIII Page 179 A Letter to Mr. R. S. about Mr. Wood's Antiquities of the University of Oxford Page 181 Another to Mr. R. S. about the same subject Page 183 Some Quotations out of Bish p Barlow s Answer to Mr. Hobb's Book of Heresie wherein is proved the Papists gross hypocrisie in the putting Hereticks to Death Page 185 A Letter to Mr. R. T. concerning the Canon-Law allowing the whipping of Hereticks as practis'd by Bishop Bonner at his House at Fulham Page 189 A Letter to the Earl of Anglesey answering two Questions whether the Pope be Antichrist And whether Salvation may be had in the Church of Rome Page 190 A Letter to another person about Worshipping the Host being formal Idolatry and about famous Protestant Divines holding it lawful to punish Hereticks with death Page 202 A Letter about what Greek Fathers and Councils were not translated into Latine before the time of the Reformation Page 206 A Letter concerning the King's being empower'd to make a Layman his Vicar General Page 214 A Letter concerning the allowance and respect that the sentences of Protestant Bishops may expect from Popish ones writ by way of Answer to a Friend of Mr. Cottington's who acquainted the Bishop that the Court of Arches here was of Opinion that the Sentence of the Arch-Bishop of Turin could not here be question'd by reason of the practice of Popish and Protestant Bishops allowing each other Sentences Page 216 A Letter concerning Historical Passages in the Papacy and of the Question whether the Turk or Pope be the greater Antichrist Page 224 The Bishop's Thoughts about 1. When the famous Prophetical Passage in Hooker might have its accomplishment and 2. About the modus of deposing of a King in Poland the Circumstances of which it was propable the Bishop was well informed â—n by his frequent Conversation with some Polonian Noble-Men and Students at Oxford He returned his Answer to the two Enquiries Page 231 The Bishop's Answer to this Question whether the Famous Saying of Res nolunt male administrari of which a Gentleman in London pretends to be the Author had not its Origine from Aristotle's Metaphysicks to which Venerable Bede in his Philosophical Axioms refers in his citing the Saying Page 235 The Bishop's Letter about Natural Allegiance and of Kingly Power being from God and Confuting the Lord Shaftsbury's Speech in the House of Lords for the contrary c. Page 237 A Letter answering some Queries about Abby-Lands and about the Opinions of Calvin and Luther of the Punishing of Hereticks Page 240 The Bishop's Remarks on Bishop Sanderson's Fifth Sermon ad Populum 1 Tim. 4.3 4 5. Page 243 A Letter answering a Question about the temper of the Prophets when they Prophesâ—â—d and likewise a Query about the Tridentine Creed Page 250 A Letter of a new Popish Book Published Anno 1684. Page 253 A Letter to Sir P. P. Apologizing for his not going to Lincoln and proving that H. 8. his Marrying his Brother's Wife was only against the Judicial Law and animadverting on Calvin's making the Penal-Laws about Religion given to the Jews to bind under the Gospel Page 255 A Letter about the liberty formerly allow'd to the Protestants in France to Print Books there against Popery c. Page 260 A Letter about the French Persecution and of our King 's relieving and protecting the French Refugees in which Letter the Popish Tenet of the Intention of the Priest as necessary to the validity of the Sacrament is confuted Page 263 A Letter of somewhat falsely and maliciously brought in in the body of the canon-Canon-Law Page 268 The Bishop's Judgment about the Levitical Revenue and the proportion between them and the other Tribes Page 271 A Letter to Mr. R. T. concerning the Confirmation of the Order of the Jesuites the numbers of that Order c. Page 281 A Letter censuring the Trent Councils denying the use of the Cup to the Laity in the Eucharist Page 284 A Letter charging the Tenet of the Lawfulness of burning Heretical Cities on the Church of Rome Page 287 A Letter of Gratian's falsifying the passage out of Cyprian in the Canon Law to induce the burning of Heretical Cities c. Page 295 A Letteâ— to the Earl of Anglesey of the Council of Trent not being receiv'd in France Page 302 Another to the same Person on the same Subject Page 309 The Bishop's Survey of the number of the Papists c. Page 312 A Letter about my L. Falkland c. Page 324 The Substance of the Bishops Letter to Mr. Isaac Walton upon his design of writing the Life of Bishop Sanderson Page 333 A Letter giving an account of the Bishop and his Clergies Address to K. James Page 340 About Mr. Chillingsworth's Peculiar Excellency Page 344 A Question about the Case of the Marriage between Mr. C. P. and Mrs. M. C. answered Page 351 Biretti's Case in Bishop Taylor 's Ductor Dubitantium l. 3. ch 1. Rule 4. Page 358 The Case of the aforesaid Marriage between Mr. C. P. and Mrs. M. C. by Sir P. P. Page 361 The Bishop's Judgment in point of Conscience to it Page 372 A Letter asserting the King 's not being by Scripture prohibited to pardon Murther Page 374 An account of Guymenius's Book Apologizing for the Jesuites Tenets about Morals Page 378. A Letter about the Papists founding Dominion in Grace Page 380 The substance of a Preface to a Discourse about the Gunpowder Treason c. Page 383 The Substance of a Discourse confuting Mr. R. Baxter's Tenet in his Saints Everlasting-Rest that common or special and saving-grace differ only gradually Page 424 The Bishop's Discourse in Confutation of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome Page 454 The Bishops Exercitation on the Question whether it is better not to be at all than to be miserable Page 469 An Abstract of the Bishop's Exercitation concerning the Existence of God if demonstrable by the light of nature Page 521 The Bishop's determination of the Question if the Divine Prescience takes away Contingency Page 568 The Bishop's Determination of the Question whether Election be from Faith foreseen Page 577 The Question decided whether the Fathers under the Old Testament obtained Salvation by the death of Christ Page 583 The Question resolved whether the Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith Page 594 The Determination of the Question if Faith alone doth justifie Page 601 Of the Supream Power as to things Sacred as well as Civil Page 608 Of the necessity of a Lawful Call to the Ministry Page 611 Concerning the Vnlawfulness of Self-murder Page 620 A Discourse
natural Law binds all men to believe in Jesus Christ so no positive Law doth and therefore all Men are not bound to believe on him That this may appear I say that to bring a positive obligation on all Mankind two things are necessarily required First Latio legis Secondly Publicatio First 'T is necessary such a Law should be made For every legal obligation presupposeth a Law made which may oblige all those to and for whom it is made And to the making of such a Law there are two things required First Potestas that the Lawgiver be Persona publicâ authoritate praedita and have a just power and authority to command see Fran. Suarez De Legibus l. 1. c. 8. Secondly Voluntas obligandi that he be willing to give such a command as may induce a legal obligation to obedience Suarez ibidem c. 5. Occham in 3. Quest 22. A Castro lib. 2. De lege paenali cap. 1. For if either of these be wanting it is impossible to make a Law to bind any much less all Secondly Nor is latio legis sufficient to induce an obligation but there must be a sufficient promulgation of it too L. Leges Sacratissimae C. De Leg. Suarez ubi supra l. 1. c. 11. § 3. p. 35. For suppose a Monarch who hath a supream Nomothetical power to make a law and when it is made and written should lay it up in archivis imperii so that it be not known nor publish'd to his Subjects it is manifest that such a Law neither is nor can be obliging till he takes care for the publishing of it so that a legal and sufficient publication must of necessity precede the obligation of any Law Cum lex per modum regulae constituatur saith Aquinas 1. 2. quaest 90. art 4. in Corp. Vasquez ibidem eam ut obligandi vim habeat promulgari ad eorum qui legi subjiciuntur notitiam deduci oportet Thus much in Thesi I conceive evident and now in hypothesi that I may apply it to our present purpose Admit that there were such a Law made in the Gospel as did intend to oblige all Mankind to believe in Jesus Christ for Salvation yet I deny that de facto it doth oblige all Men to that belief for want of sufficient promulgation and publication since 't is clear that many Millions of men never heard of it During the legal Oeconomy and dispensations of the Old Testament God did discover somewhat of Christ to the Jews yet not so to the Gentiles which were infinitely the Major part of the World And of the Gentiles none knew of it but such as were proselytes and brought to an union with the Jews who were few in comparison of the rest who save in Darkness and in the Shadow of Death Hence it is that when the Gospel was publish'd among the Gentiles and the Apostles preach'd every where that men should believe on Christ for Salvation Act. 17 18. They call'd our Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a strange Deity or Daemon not heard of before The times of ignorance God winked at that is the men of those times as Grotius on the place See Deut. 22.1 2 3 4. You cannot say that God did promulgate such a Law to the Gentiles before Christ as obliged them to believe on Christ for Salvation By the later discoveries of the World it is apparent that many Nations never heard of Christ And some say there are whole Nations that worship no God Episcopius the Arminian was of this opinion of mine and quotes that place How shall they believe on him that they have not heard of And how shall they hear without a Preacher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a Promulgator or publisher for so in Suidas the word is taken and praedicare is to publish in the Civil Law A Third reason why I deny this assertion is because Infants are not bound to believe in Jesus Christ and they are a considerable part of the World And therefore all Men are not bound to believe on Christ The great and good Law-giver binds none to impossibilities And if you can make it appear upon just and carrying grounds that Infants Naturals to whom God hath not given the use of Reason and those many Millions in all ages who never heard the Gospel are bound to believe in Christ for Salvation then I shall grant your Minor and admit your Argument to be good namely that Christ died for all without exception because all without exception are bound to believe in him I shall now weigh your reasons which make you think your notion to be as clear as the noon-day The first Objection of yours is Now Gods commanding all men to Repent as it is in the Acts. But Quid hoc ad Iphicli Boves It doth not follow because to Repent therefore to Believe For the Light of Nature commands all men who have sinn'd to repent of that Sin and would have done so if Jesus Christ had never been reveal'd to the World If Sempronius hath sinn'd he is bound by the Law of Nature to Repent For the Law of Nature obligeth men to love God with all their Hearts and therefore to repent and turn to him and be sorry for their sins And so the Law of Nature bound Adam to Repent because he had sinn'd and that before the New Covenant was made Adam had a command to repent from the Law of Nature but not to believe Your other Objection is He that believes not shall be damned I answer Infidelity is twofold First Privative When we do not believe the things which we are bound to believe And this is a Vice and Moral obliquity opposed to the Vertue of Faith That Principle in the Schools is a clear Truth Omne malum Morale est Carentia boni debiti inesse pro eo tempore pro quo est debitum Secondly Infidelity is Negative and this is taken to be Carentia fidei in iis qui non tenentur Credere Those Reprobates to whom Christ was never reveal'd shall not be try'd by the Law of the Gospel nor the positive Law given to the Jews nor any part of it Moral Ceremonial and Judicial as far as it was positive For in this sense the Gentiles are said to have no Law Rom. 2.14 and therefore not to be Judged by it Rom. 2.12 But they shall be try'd by the Law of Nature For so St. Augustine hath long since stated the Question Aug. in Johannem eos speaking of the Gentiles ad quos Evangelii praedicatio non pervenerit excusari a peccato infidelitatis damnari propter alia peccata quorum excusationem non habent utpote in legem Naturae Commissa Thus Sir have I in the way of a libera theologia communicated my Thoughts to you If you can convince me that I have therein erred we shall both of us be gainers by your so doing You will gain the Victory and I the Truth And this is all at present from Sir
explains this whole business about Ecclesiastical Pensions what they are and how far permitted in the Roman-Church 1. In England the King has by (a) Statut. 26. Hen. 8. cap. 3. 1. Elizab. cap. 4. Law out of Ecclesiastical Dignities and Livings 1. Primitiae Annatae or first fruits of all Arch-bishopricks c. 2. Tenths of all Vicaridges as well as Arch-bishopricks Bishopricks c. above * In the Statute 26. Hen. 8. cap. 3. in the last Proviso save two entry Parsonage or Vicaridge above 8. Markes in the Kings Books pay'd first fruits c. 10 l. per Annum in the Kings Books and of all Personages above 8. Marks in the said Books 3. There besides these many Corrodies Pensions and Annual Fees named so in (b) Statut. 1. Eliz. cap 4. the Statutes are payable to the King out of many Ecclesiastical Livings 2. Not only the Kings but Bishops now have many Pensions payable to them out of Ecclesiastical Dignities and Parsonages Vicarages Hospitals c. so the Bishop of Lincoln your servant has many small Pensions many great Mannors being taken from that Bishoprick which we call sometime praestations sometime Pensions paid to him 1. By the 6. Arch-Deacons in that Diocess some paying 5. l. some 10. l. per Annum some more 2. By about 150. Parsonages Vicarages Hospitals c. the Pensions small And I know that other Bishopricks and Colledges c. have such Pensions payable to them out of Ecclesiastical and Parochial Benefices 3. And it seems that anciently the Bishops and Ordinaries had power to lay such Pensions upon Benefices The (a) Statut. 26. Hen. 8. cap. 3. § And be it also ordained Statute implies as much provided it were not above one third part of the value of the whole Benefice But then the Popish lawyers (b) Covar ruvius Institut Moralium Tom. 2. lib. 8. cap. 6. p. 943 945. tell us that there is Pensio duplex 1. Quae Beneficio imponitur which is perpetual and payed out of the Benefice successively who ever be Incumbent and they say no Bishop can lay any such Pension on a Benefice 2. Quae Beneficiario imponitur and this is temporary payable only by that person on whom it is imposed and when he dies ceaseth And they grant Bishops might impose such Pensions 4. De Facto thus it was But Quaeritur de Jure What 's past I shall not question What has been done heretofore they who did it have before this answer'd for it But pro futuro I conceive neither the King nor any other much less can lay any such pension upon any Ecclesiastical Living so as to oblige the present incumbent to pay it 1. Because it is against our Magna Charta (c) 25. Ed. 1. cap. 6. And the Statute de Tâ—llagio non concâ—dendo cap. 1. In my Lord Cook 's Institut part 2. p. 532. and many Statutes to take from any Subject any part or penny of what 's their's without their consent in Parliament 2. And if I may speak freely what I think I believe 't is not in the power of the Parliament to alienate any of the Church Revenue to any other use than that sacred one to which they were given and this I believe is demonstrable from the principles of Nature and Scripture from the Civil Canon and our Common-Lawers and from principles received by Divines and Lawyers of all Conditions and Countries But to prove this Heretical position for so many think it will require more pains and paper and possibly more abilities than you expect or are like to find in Oxon Sept. 29. 1676. Your faithful Friend and Servant T. L. Sir ONE thing in your last about first Fruits and Tenths I forgot in my Answer to your long and kind Letter and have now only time to tell you what I believe you better know that what we commonly call first-fruits the Popish Canonists call Annatae or Annates because they were one years Revenue of all vacant Ecclesiastical Benefices paid to the Pope To which he had no right by any Law of God or Man but by Tyranny and unjust usurpation and great oppression of the poor Clergy When Hen. VIII by Statute forbad Annates and Tenths to be any more paid to the Pope the Act pass'd with great willingness and joy to the Clergy who believ'd that they should never pay them any more But this they were mistaken in for what the Pope had most tyranically and by oppression most injustly got Hen. VIII kept to himself So that the burden lies still heavy upon the Clergy only the Pope being cast off they have a better Landlord But I need not say any more of Annats or Tenths you know that Spelman (a) In Glossario Verbo Annatae Cowel (b) His Interpreter Verbo Annats my Lord Cook (c) Institutes part 4. p. 120. Bzovius (d) In Continuatione Annalium Baronii Tom. 15. ad Annum 1397. § 4. p. 143 Col. 2. The Gallican Sanctio Pragmatica (e) Sanctio Pragmatica cum Glossis Paris 1666. p. 468. Col. 2. C.D. eadem Sanctio Edita Paris Anno. 1613. p. 1009 Concilium Basiliense Sess 21. De Annatis with its Glosses and many others have given us a full account of their Original and the Injustice and iniquity of that Papal Imposition Sure I am that in Impropriate Livings the payment of Tenths usually lyes on the poor Vicars who as you well observe since the Reformation and the ceasing of Oblations which in times of Popery were very great are many of them so very poor that none will take Institution to them that making them liable to pay Tenths and therefore we are necessitated to let them hold such small Livings by Sequestration otherwise the poor people can have no Preaching or Prayers It were a great work of Charity worthy the care and piety of our gracious King and Parliament to find a Remedy for this c. I am Buckden Jan. 2. 1682. Your affectionate Friend and Servant Tho. Lincolne A Letter of the vast Subsidy given by the Clergy to Henry the VIII Sir VVHAT you say of the Susidy the Clergy gave to Henry V. in Chichley's time That you cannot find what and how much it came to I am of your opinion and for the reason you give that the particular sum it came to cannot now be distinctly known But I can tell you of a far greater Subsidy given to Hen. VIII in Woolsey's time by the Convocation Anno. 1523. which was no less than one entire half of every Ecclesiastical Persons Revenue for one year This all Natives of England paid to the King and all Strangers beneficed in England and of such there were then many paid one whole years Revenue only Erasmus Polydore Virgil and three or four more who had Ecclesiastical Preferments here excepted now do you Judge what a vast summe this must make when all Natives of England gave one half years revenue of all
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