but even by Sacred Writers and especially by Moses and the Prophets among whom therefore the Septuagint finding the Hebrew words Katial and Heda to denote a Civil Convention did interpret them by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And moreover the word Ecclesia is used more than once in the New Testament for such a Convention So in the 19th of the Acts when Demetrius the Silver-smith had stirred up the People against St. Paul that tumultuary Concourse of the People is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see verses the 32d 39th 40th But of a Church as it signifies such a Convention we do not dispute But Secondly Ecclesia is taken more especially not for every Caetus but for a certain Company of certain Men call'd by God and his holy Spirit out of the rest of the dreggs of Mankind and this is the most usual interpretation of the word in the New Testament And tho' there hath been a long Custom of calling Christians by the name of Ecclesia and Jews by that of Synagoga yet the Ancients did call them otherwise For the 70 Interpreters do 70 times apply the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Jews and Synagoga not so often But we enquire not here of the Jewish Church of Synagogue but concerning the Christian Church only and that is twofold First Invisible As both the Reform'd and the Romanists use to speak Secondly Visible First the Church Invisible is a Company of Men call'd not only by the external Preaching of the Gospel but the internal working of the Spirit and this is call'd Christ's Mystical Body Col. 1.24 And concerning the Church in this sense we do not here speak as if the Church invisible had any Authority in Controversies of Faith For First No Company of Men can be said to have any Authority which they neither do nor can exercise For in vain is Authority given to any multitudes of Men if it be impossible they should meet and ordain any thing Authoritatively But 't is impossible that the invisible Church of Christ that is to say Christs Mystical Body should meet since ordinarily and without some special divine Revelation 't is impossible that any Man should know who are truly Godly and planted into Christ Since therefore the Members of the invisible Church do not mutually know each other it is impossible that they should deliberately meet and ordain any thing Secondly It belongs to Authority to bind some men to be obedient But the invisible Church can oblige none to obedience since it is impossible that any man should justly be obliged to obey him that he is in a constant incapacity of knowing We do not here therefore make any Question about the Church invisible and confine it only to the Church visible And all do agree that the Church visible that is the Congregation of faithful Men who have given their Names to Christ hath Authority in Controversies of Faith All do admit the Authority of this Church in Thesi but many do doubt of it in Hypothesi and do dispute 1. Concerning the Subject thereof 2. of the Modus and Measure First there is a Dispute about the Subject of this Authority in whom it is to be found whether in a Pope or general Council or in both or whether in a Council of Bishops only or whether inferiour Clergy-Men are to be in the number of the Council and partake of its Authority or whether this Authority be only vested in Clergy-men and be not Communicated to Lay-men So that in Synods Lay-men may have Authority as at Geneva or whether this Authority be not originally in the People for so some have said that all Civil and Ecclesiastical Authorriry is originally in them Secondly 't is disputed about the modus and measure of this Authority which is attributed to the Church whether it be the Authority of a Witness or of a Judge directive only or coactive The more Modern sort of Papists especially the Jesuites do ascribe to the Pope supream and infallible Authority in determining matters of Faith as out of Baronius Suarez Bellarmine might be clearly shewn Now here we further say that the Visible Church doth occur under a double Notion First as it is taken collectively for all Christians comprehended in the visible Church whether Pastors or Sheep Clergy or Layety and so we deny that it hath this Authority Because what is in the hands of the Clergy to whom alone all Spiritual Authority is consign'd by Christ cannot be transferr d to others Secondly the Church is taken representatively for the sitting of Bishops in Councils and Synods which Nation of the Church is not to be found in Holy Writ For although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be found in the Old Testament as Translated by the 70 Interpreters and in the New Testament by a just account about 88 times yet it never signifies the Church assembled in a representative Synod as is manifest But this signification is introduc'd by Ecclesiastical use and custom Yet here we say that this Church hath the Authority not only of a Teacher but of a Judge First This Church doth Authoritatively Teach Secondly Judge Thirdly Command Fourthly Punish those who disobey Yet I do not say that the Church hath any Coactive power properly so call'd so as foro externo delinquentes ad obedientiam Cogere either by Imprisonment or pecuniary mulcts the ordering whereof belongs to the Civil Magistrate But tho' the Church cannot compell Men in foro externo it may in foro interno 1. ligando peccatorem 2. excommunicando So that here the Church shall be a Judge as well as a Teacher In the next place we say that the Church is a Judge and the judgment of matters of Faith is twofold First Private Secondly Publick As to the First Every private Christian hath the judgment of matters of Faith 1 Thes 5.21 Private Christians are to prove all things and hold fast that which is good And 1 Cor. 14.29 1 John 4.1 may be consulted for this purpose But Secondly there is a publick judgement and this properly belongs to the Church The Reason is because Pastors of Churches judge not only for their selves judicio privato but judge for all by a publick judgment And therefore the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews c. 13. v. 1. obligeth us to obey those that are set over us for they which for our Souls in the Lord. But further we say that this publick judgment of the Church is not what the Papists assert with relation to General Councils For First there was a time when there was no general Council namely for the first 300 years after Christ And Secondly those Councils are not infallible for if they were so they would be infallible either 1st Ratione partium but all parts of Councils are fallible or Secondly in respect of some Gospel-Promise made concerning the un-erring of General Councils But concerning any such promise in Scripture there
sit Antichristus was constantly held Affirmativé as appears by their Questions Disputed in their publick Acts and Commencements which are extant in Print I have heard it so held in Oxon many times between the Years 1624. and 1633. The first who publickly denied the Pope to be Antichrist in Oxon was my late Lord Arch-Bishop Doctor Sheldon The Doctor of the Chair Doctor Prideaux wondering at it said Quid mi fili negas Papam esse Antichristum Doctor Sheldon answered Etiam nego Doctor Prideaux replied Profectò multum tibi debet Pontifex Romanus nullus dubito quin pileo Cardinalitio te donabit After this Doctor Hammond (c) In his Paraphrase and Annotations on 2. Thess 2.3 4. and in his Book against Doctor Blondellus deny'd the Pope and affirmed Simon Magus to be Antichrist But which is much more the Church of England has in her (d) See our Homilies Printed Anno. 1633. pag. 38. of the first part of those Homilies and the Homily against the peril of Idolatry and Superstition in the 2. part of these Homilies ' pag. 11 12. c. Homilies confirm'd by Acts of Parliament and Convocation and Subscribed by all the Clergy and all Graduates in the Universities declared the Pope to be Antichrist And then I desire to know whether they be true and Obedient Sons of the Church of England who publickly deny her Established Doctrine which they had before publickly Subscribed But if this be granted that the Pope is Antichrist then the Second Query will be whether the Church of Rome under him can be a true Church And in what sense she can be called so In answer to which Queries I shall crave leave to say 1. It is certain that the Seat of Antichrist shall not be amongst Pagans Jews or Turks but in the (e) 2. Thâ—ss 2.4 Temple of God that is even as (f) In Templo Dei. id est iâ— Ecclesia Dei Ecclesias occupalâ—it Hen. Helden Doctor Sorbâ—nicus in locum our Adversaries expound it in the Church of God the Christian Church and amongst Christians It is certain also and confessed by our Adversaries even the Jesuits (g) Jacobus Tirinus Stephanus Mâ—nochius in their Commentaries on Rev. 17.11 16 28. and on Rev. 18.4 themselves that Rome is the Mystical Babylon which is the seat of Antichrist though as they are highly concerned they would not have Rome at present to be the seat of Antichrist (h) As Doctor Hammond without any and against all Reason saith in his Annotations on Rev. 18.2 but say that he is not yet come or it must be Pagan Rome which is meant 2. But let Babylon or the seat of Antichrist be what Christian Church they will and some Christian Church it muâ—t be it is evident from the Text that God had a true Church even in Babylon in the Kingdom and under the Jurisdiction of Antichrist For speaking of Babylon or the seat and Kingdom of Antichrist God commands by his Angel (i) Rev. 18.4 come out of her my People lest you be partakers of her sins and Plagues God had his People his Elect as the Jesuits (k) Electos suos ut è Babylone exeant admonet Stephanus Menochius in locum expound it a Church of his Servants even in Babylon For it had been impossible to call any of his People out of Babylon if none of them had been in it That People of God was in Babylon in the Antichristian Church or Synagogue but not of it they dwelt in Babylon and had external Communion with Antichrist and his followers but did not Communicate with them in their Sins and Antichristianism for then they could not have been what he who best knows calls them His People so that we may truly say that in the Kingdom of Antichrist even in Babylon it self there are two Churches 1. One visible consisting of Antichrist and those who adhered to him and this is not a true Church of Christ but the Synagogue of Antichrist 2. Another invisible consisting of the People of God who kept themselves from Antichristianism and this was a true Christian Church So in the Church of the Jews after Jeroboam had set up his Calves at Dan and Bethel and the Idolatrous Worship of those Calves was Established by Law and generaly received by the People There were two Churches in the ten Tribes 1. One visible consisting of all those who obey'd Jeroboam and received and practised that Idolatrous way of Worship he had set up 2. The other Invisible consisting of those 7000 who had not bowed (l) 1. Kings 19.18 Rom. 11.4 their knees to Baal These I call the invisible Church because though their persons as Men were as visible as the Idolatrous Worshippers of Baal yet their piâ—ty and rejecting that Idolatry which was by publick Authority of their Kings Authorised and set up and by the generality of the ten Tribes received and practised this was so far from being visible and known to others that Elijah the Prophet who lived amongst them and was a Prophet sent to the ten Tribes knew it not but thought that he (m) 1. Kings 19.10 14. Rom. 11.3 only remained a true Servant of God free from that Idolatry which Jeroboam had set up and the ten Tribes did generally practise Now this invisible Church of the Jews consisting of those 7000 it is numerus finitus pro infinito a definite for an indefinite number who had not polluted themselves with Idolatry were the true Church (n) Rom. 11.1 2 4 5. Rom. 9.27 of God in the ten Tribes and owned by him as his People But that which I called the Visible Church of the ten Tribes who professed and practised the Worship of the Calves set up by Jeroboam this was no true but an Idolatrous Church To bring this home to our present purpose 3. That the Church of Rome as it has for some Centuries last pass'd and still does lye under that fatal (d) 2 Thes 2.3 and 1 Tim. 4.1 2 3. where we have two signal characters of that Apostacy and Antichrist the Author of it 1. Forbidding to Marry 2. To abstain from Meats which agree to that Roman Church evidently and to no other Church in the World Apostasie spoken of by St. Paul is very like the Church of the Ten Tribes after Jeroboam had set up Idolatry and caused them to sin For as that Church of the Ten Tribes was Idolatrous so the Church of Rome now is guilty of gross Superstition and stupid Idolatry This is not my opinion only all the Reformed Churches in Europe say the same particularly the Church of England as may and does evidently appear by her approved and authentick Writings established by the Supream Power of our Church and State attested by the Subscription of all her Clergy I mean our Homilies (a) See our Homilies Printed 1633 par 1. p. 36. in the 3d. part of the Sermon of good Works And the
willingness to relieve their necessities However I am persuaded that this most inhumane and Barbarous Persecution of the Innocent French Hereticks as they miscall them will make all sober Papists abhor the Pope and his party who use such Unchristian and Antichristian means to make Proselytes and endeavour to bring Men to the Catholick Faith as they pretend by Dragoons and Imprisonments not by demonstrations and Reasons out of Scripture For my Lord Anglesey's Papers which you mention I should be glad to see them for I well know that he had a great Understanding not only of things Civil and Political but Theological too Concerning the Question you mention of the Intention of the Priest and the dispute about it in the Council of Trent by a Bishop there you have the story in Father Paul's History of the Council lib. 2. pag. 240 241. The Bishop who Disputed excellently well against that Intention of the Priest was as he tells you the Bishop of Minori and that the Fathers did not (a) Father Paul's History of that Council pag. 242. approve his Opinion but that they were troubled and knew not how to Answer his Reasons However the Bishop of Minori did as he tells us in the Margent of that Page 242. a Year after the Council Write a little Book wherein he says that the Fathers of the Council were of his Opinion The truth is they maintain the necessity of the Priests Intention to magnifie the Priests Power and the Peoples dependance on him for if they Anger him he may as is and must be confess'd absolutely damn them For they Confess if he intend not all their Sacraments are absolute Nullities So that in the Eucharist if the Priest intend not to Consecrate it remain Bread still and they then Worshiping it as they do with Latria are the worst Idolaters (b) This is confess'd and prov'd by Costerus the Jesuit in his Enchiridion Controversiarum cap. 8. num 10. pag. 361. Editionis Colon. Agrippin 1587. in the World In short this their Doctrine of Intention is most erroneous and to them pernicious For 1. None in the Papacy who is Married can be so much as morally sure that his Children are not Bastards and every time he lyes with his Wife he commits not Fornication For Matrimony with them being a Sacrament if the Priest did not intend to Marry them then 't is no Marriage and then his Children are Bastards and he a Fornicator in begetting them 2. And once more notwithstanding their pretended Infallibility they can never be so much as morally certain that there is one true Christian in their whole Church For if those who Baptize do not intend it they are not Baptized and so not Christians and whether they intend or no is impossible for any save God who knows the Heart to know and therefore it is impossible to know that any in their Church no not the Pope is a Christian However this I am sure of that I am and intend to be Your affectionate Friend and Servant Thom. Lincoln Bugden April 20. 1686. A Letter of somewhat falsly and maliciously brought in in the Body of the Canon-Law My Honoured Friend FOR the Gloss you mention on the Can. Quoniam Dist 10. give me leave to tell you 1. That in an old Edition of the (a) Edit Paris An. 1522. Canon-Law with the Gloss and Case there is not one word or any mention of Cyprian or Julian 2. In the Edition of that Law with the Gloss and Case (b) An. 1612. at Paris which it seems you follow there is mention of Cyprian and Julian too 3 If you consult a Late (c) Edit Lugduni 1661. Edition of the Corpus Juris Canonici without the Gloss and many considerable Additions you will find several Notes subjoyn'd to that Canon Quoniam Dist 10. For instance 1. That in some Printed Copies of the Canon-Law the Title prefix'd to the Can. Quoniam was this Cyprianus Julio Imperatori which is ridiculous it being impossible that Cyprian should write to Julius the Emperor who was dead almost 300 years before Cyprian was born 2. In those Notes we are told that in all the Manuscripts one in the Vatican excepted the word Imperatori was left out and in one Manuscript Copy it was Cyprianus Juliano Episcopo whence it seems some ignorant Transcribers had made it Cyprianus Juliano Imperatori and yet Cyprian was dead at least 100 years before Julian was Emperor and so was not like to write to him 3. In those Notes above (d) In Edit Lugd. 1661. mention'd in some Antient Copies 't is Cyprianus Episcopo Jubiano 4. The Premises consider'd that there is such great difference and various readings of that Gloss as 1. Cyprianus Julio Imperatori 2. That the word Imperatori was in no Manuscript Copy save one 3. That in some Copies it was Cyprianus Juliano Imperatori 4. In others Cyprianus Juliano Episcopo 5. In others Cyprianus Jubiano Episcopo 6. In others as in the Printed Edition at Paris 1522. there is no mention at all of Cyprian Julian or any Emperor So that nothing is or can be certainly concluded as to Julian's being Pontifex and the Glossator calling him so from such various and uncertain readings 5. That the Roman Emperors and antiently all Kings were Sacerdotes Pontifices (a) Can. Cleros Dist 21. Gratian out of (b) Etymol l. 7. cap. 12. Isidore tells us in these words Ante autem Pontificeâ— Reges erant nam majorum haec consuetudo fuit ut Rex esset Sacerdos Pontifex inde Pontifices Romani Imperatores appellabantur At the beginning of the World and till Moses his time when God annex'd the Priesthood to Aaron and his Family Imperium Sacerdotium were in Primogenito And after our blessed Saviour's time the Priesthood was in the Apostles and their Successors yet the Pagan Emperors kept the Sacerdotium in their hands and were call'd Summi Pontifices but when the Emperors became Christians with the Gloss he mentions out of Cyprian tho' Cyprian was dead before Constantine and any Christian Emperor but cites no place in Cyprian to prove it 6. For the Glossator honest John Semeca if you consult the Paralipomena ad Abbatis Vespergensis Chronicon ad Annum 1256. pag. 332. you will find high commendations of him and his Gloss that he was Praepositus Halberstatensis and was an excellent Dr. of the Laws and excommunicated by Clemens the 4th who was made Pope An. 1264. but both the Pope and he died shortly after and so with their Lives that Quarrel ended I am Sir Your affectionate Friend and faithful Servant Tho. Lincolne Sir P. P. having observed many to look with an evil Eye on the Clerical Revenue and that in the considering of the affluent Quota the Levitical Tribe had allotted to it by the Divine Wisdom yet of the Proportion that the Number of the Levites held with the Number of all the
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