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
of the Bishops proving every Lie to be a sin Page 625 The Bishops determination that the efficacy of the Sacrament depends not upon the intention of the Priest Page 629 The Bishop's Attestation of Bishop Sanderson his Predecessor his dying a true Son of the Church of England in opposition to the Calumny of a Presbyterian Divine reporting publickly that he died an approver of that Sect. The contrary whereof is likewise made to appear out of the Bishop's last Will and Testament Page 634 An Abstract of a Letter of the Bishops to the Clergy of his Diocess Page 641 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 OR Directions to a young Divine for his Study of Divinity and choice of Books c. De Studio Theologiae 1. THeology or Divinity is a Science or Prudence containing our knowledge of God and our Duty and the Worship due to him And there are Two and but Two Principles to know both 1. Lumen Naturae and the Principles of Natural Reason common to all Mankind and on these Thologia Naturalis is solely built 2. Lumen Scripturae and Divine Revelation on this Theologia revelata seu (a) I know that Theologia Revelata in its full Latitude may be 1. Patriarchalis i. e. the positive Revelation of God's Will and Worship made to the Patriarchs before Moses for to them the Messias was promised and Salvation by him they had the Covenant of Grace and Sacrificia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were Sacraments and Seals of it 2. Mosaica which contained many further positive Revelations of God's Will and Worship c. 3. Evangelica of which only at present Evangelica is built containing such further knowledge of God and our Duty as we have beyond all that Natural Reason can tell us by Divine Revelation in Scripture The first Theologia Naturalis we may truly call Morality and the Religion common to all men as men and rational creatures The second Theologia Revelata we call Christianity and is the Religion peculiar to Christians Now to be a Christian presupposes him to be a Man and Christianity does not exclude but presuppose Morality and is an addition to and perfection of it yet those two Morality and Christianity are as distinct as Natural Reason and Revelation which are their respective Measures and Principles 2. Theologia Naturalis being totally grounded on the Law of Nature or the Moral Law it will be convenient to know 1. The Nature Extent and Obligation of that Law as also of Laws in general and for this we may consult such as these 1. Grot. de Jur. Belli c. Lib. 1 cap. 1. s 9. 2. Pet. à Sancto Joseph Idaea Theol. Moral Lib. 1. de Legibus 3. Aquinas 1ª 2 ae Quaestio 90 c. 4. Suarez de Legibus 5. Azorius Institut Moralium Part 3. lib. 1. cap. 1. c. And when there is necessity to see more all the Commentators on Aquinas and all Casuists where they speak of the Ten Commandments or Moral Law amongst others Filliucius Quaest Mor. Tract 21. 2. The Number and Nature of the Moral Duties and Vices commanded or forbid by that Law And here besides those many Divines and Christians who have expresly writ upon the Ten Commandments and all things commanded or forbid in them there are exceeding many Authors of excellent Use and Authority to understand the Nature of Moral Habits and Actions good and bad As 1. Aristot. Eth. ad Nichom Fil. 2. Andronicus Rhodius his Paraphr ex editione Heinsii Lug. Bat. 1617. in 80. 3. The Graec. Schol. in Arist. Eth. 4. Hierocles in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pythag. so called because they contain Pythagoras his Doctrine for Philolaus Crotoniates was the Author of those Verses 5. Johan Stobaei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aurel. Allobrogum 1609. highly commended by (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suidas in Joh. Stob. vid. Pletii Biblioth Cod. 176. pag. 366. Suidas A number of this kind there be even amongst Pagan Writers who have excellently described the nature and kinds of Moral Virtues and Vices 3. For Theologia Revelata of which the Scriptures are the sole Rule we are to consider and endeavour to know 1. The Text it self 2. The true meaning of it 4. For the Text it will be convenient to have for the Old Testament 1. Biblia Interlinearia Heb. Lat. Antwerp 1584. 2. Biblia Graec. Septuaginta Interpret Paris 1628. 3. Biblia Lat. Junii Tremel in Folio or Quarto 4. Biblia Lat. Sixti 5 ti Romae 1590. Bib. Lat. Clementis 8 vi Romae 1592. if conveniently they could be had both Popes pretend to Infallibility and yet their Bibles contradict one another expresly and in terminis an hundred times But it must be remembred that the Bibles of Clement the Eighth are many times Printed and with a Lying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 miscalled Biblia Sixti quinti Thus in an Edition at Antwerp in Octavo 1628. The Title is Bibl. sacr Vulgat Editionis Sixti Pont. Max. Jussu recognita and yet 't is the Bible of Clem. the 8th So in another Edition at Antwerp 1603. in Fol. and so again Coloniae Agrippinae 1666. in eight little Volumes in Octavo 5. For the Text of the New Testament there are many Editions but two most useful 1. Novum Testamentum Graec. per Rob. Steph. Paris 1550. Folio The best Character Paper and Exactness besides it gives an account of all the antient Sections and Divisions of the Testament And that 1. In Sectiones Majores seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sic Matthaeus habet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 68. Marcus 48. Lucas 83. Johannes 78. vide Suidam verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. In Minores seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quorum Numerus multo major Matthaeus enim habet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 355. Marcus 236. Lucas 342. Johan 232. 3. Minimas quas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellant at Latini versus so that every Line in the Msc was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or versus and thus pag. 95. in (a) In dicta Stephani Editione Paris 15â—0 calce Evangelii secundum Marcum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 1590 c. 2. N. Testamentum Graecè à Steph. Curcellaeo editum Amstelodamae 1658. Octavo It has the Variae Lectiones and the parallel places more exactly than any other I have yet seen and yet the forementioned Edition of Rob. Steph. has the variae Lectiones of 15. Msc 6. When occasion is to consult the Bible in more Languages and more Editions we have 1. Biblia Complutensia compl 1515. in three Fol. 2. Biblia Regia Regis Hispaniae per Ariam Montanum Antwerp 1569. 3. Biblia per Mich. Le Jaii 7 Linguis Vol. 10. Par. 1645. 4. Biblia Polyglotta London 1657. By collation of these we may see the difference and variety of reading c. 7. For better understanding of these Languages and the Bible by them it will be convenient to have 1. Some Concordances to find out words how oft
to this Point besides those argued particularly that Rom. 2.4 Or despisest thou the Riches of his Goodness and Forbearance and Long-suffering not knowing that the Goodness of God leadeth thee to Repentance The Long-suffering and Goodness of God are said to lead Men to Repentance because they testifie according to a rational and clear Interpretation a willingness and readiness in God to receive all such into grace and favour with himself who shall unfeignedly repent of their sins There is no other consideration but this at least none without this in respect whereof the patience or bountifulness of God can be said to lead i. e. to perswade or invite to Repentance There is no motive or perswasive whereof sinners are capable unto Repentance without hope of pardon upon Repentance In the mean season you see it clear from the Scriptures and the Scriptures as you have seen run parallel with evident and clear Reason all along in this Point that even Heathen Men and those that want the History of the Gospel have yet a sufficiency of means whereby to believe and to prevent the Wrath and Indignation which is to come in which regard they are altogether inexcusable if they do it not He saith in ◠29 That whereas you argue that all Men have not a Legal Tye or Obligation upon them to believe in Jesus Christ and upon this account cannot stand bound to believe on him I answer by denying your Antecedent and affirm by all men i. e. all men not wholly disabled either through want of Years or defect of Natural Capacity to believe though there be a sense which the School-men term Sensus Divisus wherein even such persons as these are under a Tye of believing but all others I affirm are simply and directly under the Obligation of believing on Jesus Christ And whereas you further argue if so then are they under this Obligation either by the Law of Nature or else by some positive Law of God and affirm that by neither and hence conclude not at all I answer The Obligation you speak of lieth upon them by the force and authority of both these Laws First The Law of Nature requireth all men teacheth all men 1. To seek and enquire after God i. e. the knowledge of his Nature Attributes Excellency and Perfection of Being 2. After the richest and best discoveries of his will and pleasure concerning men which are any where to be found 3. And lastly This Law requireth likewise of all men to submit unto every part of the will and pleasure of God concerning them being any ways made known to them otherwise we must hold either that this Law teacheth not men to regard mind look or listen after any manifestation or discovery which God makes of himself in any part of the World but only near to them and as the saying is under their Noses or within their own Thresholds Or else that it teacheth them to rest satisfied with such discoveries in this kind which are imperfect and unsatisfactory Or lastly That it doth not teach them to submit to the Will of God in all things as far as it shall be discovered unto them none of all which can be affirmed with truth or likelihood of truth First then if the Law of Nature requireth of all men except the before excepted to enquire after the best and fullest discovery which God any where maketh of himself his will and pleasure concerning men And 2. If the Gospel be the richest and fullest discovery in this kind which he hath made or which is to be found which I presume is no Christian man's Question And lastly If it be the express Revealed Will of God in this Gospel-discovery of himself that all men who hear of it or have come to the knowledge of it should believe in his Son Jesus Christ it roundly follows that by the Law of Nature all men of years and competent understanding stand obliged to believe in Christ either in sensu composito as viz. if they have or have had the Letter of the Gospel or live or have lived under the sound of the Ministry of it or else in sensu Diviso viz. in case the Gospel hath never yet in the Letter or Ministry of it been revealed unto them There are more Notions of the same nature that the reader may find in Mr. Goodwin's said Book and to which he is referr'd it being learnedly writ and containing what can be said for Mr. Goodwin's Assertion and both Dr. Barlow's Letter and Mr. Goodwin's Answer may be to such who write of Controversial Divinity an useful Specimen of two Antagonists writing of the same with Candour and like Gentlemen as well as Scholars and Christians and the which was suitable to the natural tempers both of Dr. Barlow and Mr. Goodwin For tho' the latter hath in many of his Writings often us'd sharp satyrical Reflections on the Authors he answered yet it was always in the case of such who treated him uncivilly and scurrilously that he thus answered a Fool according to his folly But the soft and gentle and Christian Language he bestows on Dr. Barlow in this his Answer is in many places obvious to the Reader besides in that before mentioned in p. the 4th He had before said in p. 3. I find you a man of a fa◠better spirit than I have yet met with in any Antagonist And afterward I cannot but kindly resent in you that worthy disposition in you to put honour where it was wanting and to help with your respects to fill up the Pit which others have digged in the field of my Reputation to find the Treasure of their own And afterward I greatly desire it at the hand of my God both yours and mine c. And you have writ not without grounds worthy a Learned Man And in p. 5. he saith Tho' I very much honour you for those signal parts of Christian worth and ingenuity which by the light of your Papers sent me I sufficiently discern in you c. And he concludes his Letter with the soft and Christian Subscription viz. Yours in Jesus Christ as your self and your own Soul J. Goodwin But here it is fit to advertise the Reader that Dr. Barlow's Assertion in his Letter to Mr. Goodwin hath in it nothing of heterodoxy or what differs from the measures of the Church of England For our Great Bishop Sanderson with as much honour now quoted in the Divinity Schools as Aristotle is in those of Philosophy tells us in his 4th Lecture and of the Adequate Rule of Conscience § 21. That the Gentiles to whom the Gospel hath not been Preached are not bound to believe the Gospel or to believe on Christ For Nemo tenetur ad impossibile And he asserts the same thing in that Lecture § 32. Dr. Barlow having been in the year 1673. Arch-deacon of Oxford and being obliged to Communicate to the Clergy of that Diocess the Orders about Catechising and which his Majesty
that Adam by his fall transmitted no Sin but some miseries and calamities only to his posterity The Good Old Man was extreamly troubled at it and bewailing the miserable effects of those licentious times seemed to worder but that a second Consideration of the times he then was in abated something of his surprise how any should Write or at least be suffered to publish an Errour so contrary to truth and to the Doctrine of the Church of England firmly grounded as he justly affirmed upon the clear Evidence of Scripture and Establish'd by the Lawful Supream Authority both Sacred and Civil of this Nation But our Prelate names not the Books nor their Authors but rather wishes neither of them had been ever known and he adds both the Doctrine and the unadvis'd Abetâ—ours of it are and shall be to me Apochryphal Next for the proof of the Doctors Piety and great Ability and Judgment in Casuistical Divinity he inserts this Story viz. That he the said Dr. Barlow Discoursing with an Honourable Person who was as Pious and Learned as Noble which we are informed was the late Renowned Rob. Boyle Esq about a Case of Conscience relating to Oaths and Vows and their Nature and Obligation and in which for some particular Reasons the said Mr. Boyle desired at that time more fully to be instructed and having referr'd him for that point to Dr. Sandersons's Book de Juramento He accordingly perused it with great content which done he ask'd Dr. Barâ—ow whether he thought Dr. Sanderson might not be persuaded to write Cases of Conscience if he might have an Honorary Pension and a convenient supply of Books to enable him to go through that task to which our Author replied he thought he would and accordingly in a Letter to Dr. Sanderson after he had told him what satisfaction that Honourable Person and many others had found by his Book de Juramento started the Proposal to him whether he would for the Churches Benefit write some more Tracts of Cases of Conscience to which he replied he was glad his Works had done any good and that if he thought any thing else he could do would so much benefit any body as 't was affirmed that his former had done he would presently go about the Work though without a Pension That upon this Answer the said Honourable Person sent 50 l. to the said Doctor by Dr. Barlows hands as knowing him to be then but in a low Condition and that soon after he Revised finish'd and Publish'd his Book of Conscience little says our Author in Bulk but not in the benefit an understanding Reader may reap by it there being so many general propositions about Conscience and its Nature and Obligation laid open and made good there with such forcible Evidence of Reason that he who Reads Retains and can with Discretion apply them with respect to due time and place to particular Cases may by their light very Reasonably resolve a Multitude of Doubts and Scruples of Conscience After this he produces an Instance of the said Dr. Sanderson's Judgment concerning a Passage very pertinent as he says to his present purpose which he thus relates When the said Dr. acted as Royal Professor of Divinity in Oxford and in performing his publick Lectures in the Schools gave great content to his Auditors by the truth of his Positions and uncommon Evidence and clearness of his Proofs and especially in the Resolution of all Casuistical Doubts that occurred in the explication of the matter of his Subject A Person of Quality still living privately ask'd him What method was best for a young Divine to take to make himself an able Casuist To which he reply'd That presupposing this young Student to be already furnish'd with a sufficient Knowledge of the Arts and Sciences and a convenient Understanding at least of Greek Latin and Hebrew There were two things more in Humane Learning the understanding of which would much conduce to make a man a rational and able Casuist which otherwise would be very hard if not impracticable Which were 1. A competent Knowledge of Moral Philosophy and particularly of that part of it that treats of Human Actions and teaches us to distinguish What a Human-Act is Spontaneous Involuntary and mixt from whence Human-Acts derive their Moral Goodness or Badness viz. Whether from their Genus and Object or from their Circumstances And how the Goodness or Evil of Human Acts is varied by the difference of Circumstances How far Ignorance or Knowledge may augment or abate the good or evil of the same Actions Because that all Cases of Conscience including only these Questions viz. Is this Action good or evil Is it lawful to do it or not He who knows not how nor whence Human Actions became morally good or evil can never reasonably and certainly determine whether any particular Action about which he shall be question'd be so or no. And the second thing which he said would be of mighty advantage to a Casuist was a Competent Knowledge of the Nature and obligation of Laws in general ' viz. to know what a Law is what a Natural and what a Positive Law what is necessary for the Authentick passing of a Law to a Dispensation with it and likewise to its Repeal and Abrogation What publication or promulgation is requisite to give any positive Law the Force of obliging and what kind of Ignorance takes off that Obligation or aggravates excuses or diminishes the guilt of the transgression of any Law For all Cases of Conscience as is above said including only Is this thing Lawful or not And the Law the only Rule by which we can judge of the Lawfulness and Vnlawfulness of any thing it must needs follow that he who in these is ignorant of the Laws and of their Nature and Obligation can never reasonably assure himself or any Querist of the Lawfulness or Vnlawfulness of any Actions in particular This was the Judgment and Advice of that Pious and Learned Prelate the truth and benefit of which our Reverend Authour and his Worthy Successor having by a long and happy Experience found he tells his Friend That he thought he could not without Ingratitude to him and want of Charity to others conceal it And so with a Compliment of Modesty he concludes his Letter which is dated London May the 10th 1678. A Letter giving an account of the Bishop and his Clergy's Address to K. James Sir I Receiv'd yours and with my Love and Service return my thanks For our Address which you mention many of the Clergy have been sollicited by Letters from your great Town that they should not Subscribe it and I have had two or three Letters sent me incognito no name subscribed to these Letters wherein they Zealously declame against that Address and all Subscriptions to it but do bring nothing like a Reason to prove that such Subscriptions are either unlawful or Circumstances consider'd imprudent or inconvenient I was lately inform'd by a Person
Psalmist occasion to say He hath not dealt so with any Nation c. For 1. The Jews had a Judicial and Ceremonial Law given unto them immediately from God which the Gentiles had not 2. They had not only a natural and inbred knowledge of the Moral Law as the Gentiles had but besides a relation from God distinctly explicating and unfolding all the parts and dictates of the same which blind and imperfect Nature could not discover 3. They had a Priesthood of God's own appointment and Prophets of his mission who might constantly reveal the Will of God unto them whereas the Gentiles had no such thing yea these same very Oracles that they had from the Sibyllae were but once in an Age so that few or none that heard of them understood what they meant as is evident from the Doctissimus Poeta Virgil his mis-applying the Sibyllick Cumean Verses to Pollio's Son So much for the Sibyllae As for the other Instances of Trismegistus Hydaspes Orpheus c. I Answer 3. That if time would allow me to examine their particular Writings I should find many things spurious and false especially in Trismegistus but this I do not stand upon Wherefore I say that though they knew many things concerning Christ yet it follows not that therefore they knew it by Natural Light but that they had it either from the immediate Revelation of God who as Justinus well observes has so well provided for his Church that out of the Heathens their own Writings there may be Weapons taken to discomfit and refute them or from the Jews to whom they are beholden for many things Clem. Alex. copies a great many things out of Deuteronomy concerning Goâ— and says that Plato did the same Basil Magn. says that they stole a great many things from the Scripture and adopted them for their own Diodorus Siculus talks of Moses having his Laws from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was so common among them that one time recourse being had to the Oracles of Apollo to know who of the Gods it was that was Named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was answered them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jao is the chiefest of all the Gods The Heathens did commonly borrow the Names of their Gods from the Hebrew as Bacchus was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Hebrew word Jah which with the Greek Termination and Pronunciation added is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their exultation word at his Feasts was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corresponding to the Jewish Hallelujah Many such Instances might be given that the Gentiles borrowed many things from the Jews so that it is not probable they had the knowledge of these Divine Mysteries by Natural Light which I have already proved to be impossible but either by immediate Revelation from God or by their knowledge of the Jewish Constitution and Customs I come now to the Second thing proposed viz. What are the Media whereby we arise unto this knowledge of God For the better resolving of which we are to know that these Media are either inartificial viz. such as depend upon no Art of Man or artificial viz. such as are invented or found out by some Humane Art or Science Wherefore I Assert 1. God is naturally cognoscible by inartificial means By inartificial here I do not mean as they are proposed and made use of by Metaphysicians for they can propose inartificial things in an artificial method but in regard of an Ignorant Man who though destitute of the knowledge of Arts and Sciences can yet make use of this medium inartificiale by which he attains to the natural knowledge of a God and this Assertion is plain and evident if we consider Reason That the most Barbarous Nations and unpolite People who knew no Arts nor Sciences and consequently no Artificial Media have known acknowledged and Worshipped a God As Tully in his lib. 1. de Nat. Deorum lib. de Legibus hath sufficiently demonstrateâ— But Acosta Benzonius de rebus Indicis have put this beyond all doubt where in the description of the lately discovered West-Indies they shew that this most Barbarous and rude People yea scarcely Men except in their Visage had their Gods Temples and â—ests and amongst their many Gods they had one whom they imagined above all the rest who was omnipotent and infinite and unto whom all their Thoughts Words and Actions tendered the highest Reverence and Adoration imaginable Now since they were so rude and ignorant and not capable of having Artificial means How came they to know a God but by Inartificial means competent even to the most Illiterate and Ignorant sort Assertion II. Since God is naturally cognoscible by Inartificial means much more by Artificial For Arts are the improvement and perfecting of Nature so that what may be without Art cannot but be more perfectly accomplished where the subsidiary help of Art is made use of These Artificial Media or Arguments whereby the Learned Artists demonstrate the Natural Knowledge of God and his existence are various and many Yea so great is the variety of these made use of by the Ancients that some of them seem rather suasory than cogent Wherefore I shall select only those that are most forcible and urgent which are Arg. I. All Entities in the World are either made or not made non datur medium But all and every one of them cannot be made because they must either be made by themselves or by another but not by themselves for then the cause and the effect would be the same and as all causes are at least natura priores and praeexistent to the effect which they produce so this which made it self would be prior to it self quod est absurdum Wherefore those that are made must be made by another and that other which made them if it be not made at all then there is a being increated independent c. Which we call God Ergo c. But if it be made too it cannot be made by it self 〈◊〉 the Reason above assign'd so it must be made by another but if by another then the same difficulty arises about that other and so forth in all the rest till at length ye come to one above the rest which is not made at all the which if there were not there would be a progressus in infinitum Arg. II. If there be any Independent being there is a God for whatever is independent is simple as wanting any internal cause to depend upon for its composition and likewise eternal as wanting an external cause upon which to depend for its Original and whatever is simple and eternal is God 〈◊〉 that there is such a being is evident Because otherwise all things whatsoever would be dependent and that is impossible For then there would be nothing left upon which all these things should depenâ— since whatever is dependent depends upon another For a thing dependent only upon it self is the
any relation to it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was the Imperial City (b) Vid. Cod. Canonum ecclesiae universae per Christoph J ustellum Can. 206. And so they gave Constantinople such great Priviledges above all others and equal to Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was new Rome and had the Emperor and a Senate there Can. Ibid. And the Council of Chalcedon was ever receiv'd in Christendom with great Veneration and confirm'd by the Coâ—ncil of Constance (c) Vid. Concil Constantiâ—ns Sess 39. fol. 39. In edit vetere Mediolani An. 1511. which was a General one too made up of their (d) Vid. Nomina Concilor generalium post bullam Gregorii 13. In editione ultimâ Corporis Juris Canonici Paris 1618. own men By this it appears that Papists when any thing is attested out of General Councils to their prejudice will deny them and the Synodical and Concurrent Determinations of whole Assemblies as here they deny three Councils (e) Concil Chalcedonense Can. 28 apud Justellum 27. apud Longum a Coriolano 29. apud Eliam Elingerum Chalcedon (f) Synâ—dus sexta Constan in Trullo Can. 36. apud Thâ—od Balsam p. 40. apud Zonaram p. 159. Constantinople the Council of Constance (g) Concil Constan sess 34. Fol. 39. edit Mediolani in Fol. An. 1511. I have here shew'd you how they slight their Councils And it is an easier matter to shew how upon occasion they slight the Pope You will be sufficiently satisfy'd in this if you again consult the (h) Concil Constantiense sâ—ss 38. p. 37. in Editione Zacâ—ariae Ferreâ—ii Abbatis Vinâ—entini Mediolani 1511. Council of Constance and will theâ—e see that Petrus de Luna sc Benedictus 13. Haereseos damnatur sic Sacro-Sancta Synodus pronuntiat declarat per hanc diffinitivam sententiam Petrum de Lunà Benedictum 13. esse perjurum uni versalis Ecclesiae scandalizatorem schismaticum haereticum a fide devium c. Hoc etiam prae â—â—cti Concilii de retum in calce Concilii inter reliqua istius Concilii statuta habes à Papa confirmatum sess 45. p. 4. To the Reverend Mr. John Goodwin Minister of Gods Word in Coleman-street Sir I Always find in the prosecution of your Arguments that perspicuity and acuteness which I often seek and seldom find in the Writings of others You assert the Universal Redemption of all Mankind without exception by Jesus Christ Possibly there wants not clear rays of Truth in your Discourse but I want Eyes to see them Therefore I lay the blame on my self well knowing that you are not bound to find me Arguments and find me Understanding too But without more Prefatory words referring to ch 18. § 6. and p. 464. of your Treatise call'd Redemption Redeem'd where your Argument is this If Christ died not for all men then all men are not bound to believe on him But all men are bound to believe on him Therefore he died for all I shall acquaint you that it is this Argument of yours I shall pitch on and the rather because it hath been cry'd up by men of your Judgment as the great Goliah of Gath which no David could Conquer a kind of Argumentum Achilleum And so Arminius calls it himself Many of our Divines do mistake in untying the Gordian Knot And tho' several of them deny the Major yet I deny the Minor and affirm that all men are not bound to believe on Jesus Christ And here I shall first give my reasons why I deny it Secondly Answer yours By all men it is to be supposed that you mean all men in general and indeed you say so in terminis You say that Christ hath obtained this favour of God for all men without exception that they should receive sufficient means to enable them to repent and believe Your Conclusion to prove is that Christ died for all and therefore your medium which you prove it by must be as large For the principles of Logick and Natural reason tell us that there must be a just proportion and adequation between the medium by which we prove and the Conclusion to be proved Else the Argument must of necessity be weak and inconsequent Now I say that all men have not a legal tye and obligation on them to believe on Christ And here first it will easily be granted that no humane obligation can tye men to this For the internal acts of belief and dependance on Jesus Christ for Salvation as they are not within the compass of humane cognizance so no man was ever invested with such a Power and Dominium which is the foundation of all Laws over all Mankind as to be able to lay an obligation on all men universally which in this case is required Secondly Neither is there any Divine law which binds all men to believe in Jesus Christ natural or positive First Not Natural The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in St. Pauls phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aristotles Language or those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the dialect of the Stoicks those dictates of Natural Reason cannot possibly bind a Man to the belief of that which the light of Nature cannot discover But the Light of Nature never could nor can discover that there was or ever would be such a Man and Mediator as Jesus Christ seeing the Being of such a Man and Mediator did not depend on any principles of Nature but solely and wholy on the liberum Dei decretum beneplacitum which was not possible to be known by any created Understanding whatsoever further than he was graciously pleas'd to reveal and discover it For by Natural Reason we may know first That God is merciful and may if he please pardon but that actually he will is beyond the power of any natural Understanding to conclude For it will no more follow he is merciful and therefore he will pardon than it doth he is just therefore he will punish But Secondly Admit that we might by the light of Nature know that he will pardon penitent Sinners yet whether he would do it ex potestate absoluta jure dominii or propter meritum Christi seeing he might do either if he pleas'd this was above the finite capacity of any Man or Angel to know further than God reveal'd it to them 'T is true indeed that on supposition that God hath reveal'd to all the World that Christ should or had died for them and that it was his Will that all should relye on him for Salvation then the Law of Nature would oblige all Men to whom the revelation was made to believe accordingly because Nature it self binds us omni verbo divino credere when it is discovered to us But then the obligation is not originally and immediately from the Law of Nature but mediante revelatione Divinâ of which in the next place Secondly Therefore as no
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
it before the Year 1564. as might be manifestly proved were that my buisiness by Buckden March 24. 1685. Your Affectionate Friend and Servant T. L. A Letter of a New Popish Book then Publish'd c. Sir I Have received that new Popish Book you so kindly sent me The Book is much magnified by the Popish Emissaries and put into the hands of many to seduce them from our Religion particularly it was given to a Gentlewoman in Glocestershire Two Ministers who were by her Friends imploy'd to undeceive that Gentlewoman desired me to give them some Motives to disswade her from Popery I did in two Sheets of Paper give them such Motives to which as yet no answer is return'd But the Gentlewoman gave them a Paper Penn'd by her Priest containing Motives for which she turn'd a Papist The Gentlemen brought them to me I answer'd them at large in eight Sheets of Paper and they procur'd of her a Copy of the Book you sent me and last week allow'd me time to Read and return it to them privately So that I have Read the Book which is Popularly Penn'd with great confidence affirming but proving nothing with any good consequence the Author has some Rhetorick but no good Logick He makes Universal Tradition of the Church the prime and grand Foundation of all our Christian Faith and Religion and I have desired the Gentlemen who procured me the sight and reading of the Book to make this offer to the Gentlewoman and her Priest That if they can prove any one point of Popery by the Vniversal Tradition of the Church we will be their Proselytes Nay secondly If they can prove any one point of Popery by the constant and successively continued Tradition of their own Roman Church from the Apostles time to this day I will be their Proselyte That which troubles me is this our Adversaries are with diligence and cunning Sowing Tares and I fear we sleep Math. 13.25 while they are sowing them I am Sir Your Affectionate Friend and Servant T. L. Jan. 3. 1684. A Letter to Sir P. P. wherein he apologizeth for his not going to Lincolne and wherein he proves that Henry the Eighth's Marrying his Brothers Wife was only against the Judicial Law and animadverts on Calvin's making the Penal Laws about Religion given to the Jews to bind under the Gospel Sir I Received yours and this comes with my humble service to tell you that I know not what to say non ingratus beneficiis sed oppressus Your care and kindness for me in this my business has been so great and extraordinary that if I be freed from the trouble and disgrace of the threatned Visitation I must impute it next to the gracious and powerful Providence of my good God to the undeserved charity and kindness of the excellent Marquess of Hallifax and your prudence and diligence in managing that affair The truth is I am exceeding sensible amongst many more of the great Obligation you have laid upon me in this business which I can never requite beneficia tua indignè aestimat qui de reddendo cogitat nor ever shall ingratefully forget For going to Lincoln the good Counsel of that * The Marquess of Hallifax Excellent person so soon as God shall be graciously pleased to give me ability I will not fail to do it But at present my Age and Infirmities are such as disable me for such a Journey I have not been out of my house this 13 or 14 months nor able to take any Journey I have writ to my Lord Privy Seal the Reasons of my not going to Lincoln 1. I have no House there 2. Buckden as you told him is in the Center of my Diocess and stands far more conveniently for all business 3. Bishop Sanderson lived and dy'd at Buckden and Bishop Lany lived there too till he was translated to Ely nor were they ever accused or complained on for it 4. That Lincoln might not think I was unkind and neglected them I sent them 100 l. of which 50 l. to the Church and the other 50 l. to the City and since that I gave the City 20 l. towards their Expence in renewing their Charter which none of my Predecessors have done and yet I only must be accus'd and uncharitably condemn'd by my Enemies Causa indictâ inauditâ Ah! my dear Friend it is not my absence from Lincoln or any of those little things they I mean the Popish Party object against me which troubles them but that which indeed sets them on to calumniate me is they know I am an Enemy to Rome and their miscalled Catholick Religion and God willing while I live shall be so hinc illae Lachrymae I have been Loyal to my good King and dutiful to my holy Mother the Church of England and pardon my confidence I have done them more faithful and better service than any of mine Enemies have or can And notwithstanding any discouragements I shall God inabling me continue to do so I am not afraid to anger my Popish Enemies or of any mischief they can do me I serve a most gracious and omnipotent God who can and I hope will deliver me from their Cruelties and if not they shall know that I will never worship the abominable Idols they have set up I have something which in convenient time I shall publish which will anger them more than any thing I have yet done For what you mention of Henry 8. that his Marrying his Brothers Wife was only against the Judicial Law of the Jews is evidently true such a Marriage is not against the Law of Nature For 1. Cain and Abel could not possibly marry any save their Sisters yet God who never commands any thing against the Law of Nature commanded them to increase and multiply who could not lawfully multiply but by lawful Marriage 2. Sarah was Abraham's Sister Gen. 20. v. 12. and God himself saith that she was his Wife Gen. 20.3 but had it been against the Law of Nature to marry a Sister she might have been his Concubine but not his Legal Wife For 't is both Law and Reason Contractus contra Naturam initus est nullus 3. In the Levitical Law God who never does command any thing against the Law of Nature commands a Brother to take his Brothers Wife to marry her to raise up seed to his Brother But the thing is evident and needs no further proof For what you desire concerning Calvin's Opinion on Deut. 13.6 9. and Zech. 13.3 His Opinion is on Zech. 13.3 That these penal severe Laws do bind us under the Gospel his words there are these Sequitur ergo non modo legem illam fuisse Judaeis positam quemadmodum nugantur fanatici homines so I am a Fanatique in honest Calvin's Opinion sed extenditur ad nos etiam eadem Lex c. yet 't is evident those Laws were never given to th Gentiles Rom. 9.4 Eph. 2.12 and therefore neither did nor could bind
had of Antiquity Sacred or Civil of Councils and Fathers or Learned Mens Animadversions upon them nor in any great Skill he had in several Tongues and Languages c. But his Excellency wherein he excell'd many if not most Writers did arise from and consist in his Logick both natural and by exceeding great industry acquired Natural Logick I call that natural Ability which all men except Lunaticks and Mad Men have to argue rationally and prove conclusions from Principles better known to them For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ratio and whosoever argues so is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Logician Thus all Men even the poorest Country People who have no Learning Latine nor any Language but their own have a Natural Logick and of this Natural Logick our blessed Saviour (a) Math. 16.23 speaks to the Jews and approves it But that Logick in which Mr. Chillingworth's excellency did principally consist was his acquir'd Logick he industriously Studied it finding the exceeding great use of it especially in Controversies of Religion Logick and that only makes a Man to write so that his Arguments shall be 1. Consequent 2. Evident For that and that only enables a Writer really to know whether the premises do indeed infer the Conclusion or otherwise are false or fallacious and Sophistical and not truly Logicall and concluding Arguments And for this Mr. Chillingworth after an industrious and diligent reading Aristotle's and Crakanthorp's Logick who were best able to instruct him was of greater ability to judge truly than most if not all the Writers I have yet met with Besides Mr. Chillingworth in all his Disputes against Popery draws his Arguments not from Fathers or Councils though in several things they may be of good use though they be not Infallible but from the Sacred Scriptures which being of Divine Authority and Infallible are a sure and just ground of that confidence we are speaking of For the second thing above mention'd to wit Evidence it is to be consider'd that Method is a part of Logick and by it any Writing may become evident if the propositions be placed in that Method and Order of Nature in th◠Writings which they have one to another in relation to themselves that so that Proposition or Medium be placed first which in its own Nature is first and that second which immediately depends upon it and so the third c. For when Propositions or Mediums are so plac'd that their mutual dependance one upon another does appear this makes the reasons evident and though orherwise they may be consequent yet they will be confused and inevident I have known some Learned Men who sometime bring Reasons which are indeed consequent yet for want of a due Method and order of the Mediums and matter of those Reasons are confused and inevident and put the Reader to a great deal of trouble to find out the Consequence Pardon this rude Scribble and as I shall do for you pray for Your Faithful Friend and Servant Tho. Lincoln POSTSCRIPT I Have seen and read a Letter of yours to one Mr. Hale about the Validity of a Marriage between Mr. P. and Mrs. C. wherein you have setled the Question much better I am sure than I could have done Your Reasons and your Learned Quotations from the Law of Nature and Nations from the Civil Canon and our Common Law I doubt not but they may satisfie those who are concern'd in the Case I am of your Opinion and long since was so and now your Letter has confirm'd it BIshop Barlow being so profoundly Learned both in Divinity and the Civil and Canon Law that he was often applied to as a Casuist to resolve Cases of Conscience about Marriage and his Lordship having been by a Divine of his Diocess shown Sir P. P's Letter to Mr. Hale about the matter of Law and Conscience in the Case of the Marriage of Mr. P. and Mrs. C. and having shown his Concurrence with Sir P. P's Opinion about it and his Lordship having so much declared his satisfaction about Sir P. P's performance in the Resolution of the Case it is thought fit for the information of others in Marriage Cases of the like nature that may frequently arise to set down the following Papers and which Conclude with the Bishops further thoughts about the whole matter A Question about the Case of the Marriage between Mr. C. P. and Mrs. M. C. MR. P. the Elder hired part of Mrs. C's the Elder 's House having with him two Daughters one Son the said C. P. about 18 years of Age Mrs. C. the Elder had a Daughter about the same Age then from home Mr. P. the Elder his Daughters having heard much in Commendation of Mrs. M. C. the Younger desired her Mother to send for her that they might see her before they removed which was intended soon after whereupon her Mother sent for her and about a Fortnight before they went she came home The Young Gentleman soon discovered a great liking of her and applied himself very kindly to her and continued so to do seeking all opportunities for her Company and saying many kind things to her and of her to others so that the Family took notice thereof The third day following they Danced with his Sisters and other Young Gentlewomen and Gentlemen till about two or three in the Morning the Old People being all gone to Bed the Dancing being over and one Mr. F. a Divine in Orders being of their Company one of the Gentlemen took the Eldest Sister by the hand and said we have a Parson here come now let 's be Married so speaking to Mr. F. he began the Matrimonial words which the Gentleman said after him but the Lady would not saying What do you think I 'll have you Then Mr. P. the Younger taking Mrs. M. C. the Younger by the Hand said to F. come Marry us Mr. F. began the words to him to wit Wilt thou have this Woman c. and then I P. take thee M. c. Which Mr. P. said after him and she also in her turn with much persuasion said her part till the Ceremony of the Ring which they wanted and then she endeavoured to go from them the door being open P. the Younger with the said F. press'd along with her into the Hall leaving the Sisters entertained by the Gentlemen in the Parlour and there held her Mr. P. saying We 'll have it all over again for now I have got a Ring which it seems Mr. F. lent him and then Mr. F. said the words of Matrimony again Mr. P. following and when it came to her turn she repeated all after him to the Ring as before which Mr. P. put upon her Finger saying the words after Mr. F. With this Ring I thee Wed with my body I thee Worship and with all my Worldly Goods I thee endow and ending there Mr. F. clap'd his Hand upon his Breast and said Now by my Soul you are as much Man and
instance In the great (e) Anno Christ 1215. Lateran Council under Pope Innocent the Third in which were above 1200 Fathers as your own (f) Joverius Concil class 1. p. 120. Authors tells us and they (g) Concil Lateranum sub Innocent 3. Can. 3. de Haereticis declare that for disobeying the Church in not banishing Hereticks out of their Dominions Supream Princes may be Excommunicated by their Subjects depos'd by the Pope their Subjects absolv'd from their Oath of Allegiance and their Kingdoms be given to what Catholicks the Pope pleaseth So England in Queen Elizabeth's time was by the Pope given to Philip the Second of Spain and if the Invincible Spanish Armado or the Prodigious Impiety of the Pope could have compassed it he had ruin'd that Queen and possessed her Kingdom But there is no power or policy against Providence our most Gracious Good God did most miraculously preserve the Queen and her Kingdom from Spanish and Popish Slavery and Tyranny Sit nomen ejus in saecula benedictum I shall not endeavour to prove this Canon erroneous for I am perswaded there can be no Christian who knows his Duty to God and his King but would abhor it not only as Erroneous but as highly Impious and Traiterous THe Bishop having long ago when he was a young Master of Arts Printed his Exercitations in Latine at the end of Scheibler's Metaphysicks and whereby he acquired great â—ame both in our Universities and all the Protestant Universities in Christendom and there being one Exercitation on the Question Whether it is better not to be at all than to be miserable A Question that in his Account of the Arminian Tenents in this Volume he refers to on that head and the Bishop's performance in the Exercitation being incomparable and he having owned to his Friends that it cost him more pains than any of the rest it is thought fit for the Reader 's Profit and Entertainment here to Print it as it is now Translated into English viz. EXERCITATION I. In Which that celebrated and famous Question Whether it be more eligible to be annihilated or not to be at all than to be miserable is discuss'd As also Durandus his Reasons are considered who asserts That it is better and according to the Rules of right reason more preferable to be miserable than to be reduced to a simple non-entitie I Must intreat the Candid Reader to pardon me if here my Style should appear rough or harsh for indeed it here savours more of Aristotle's Peripatum than of Tully's Tusculanum Herein I act the part of a Philosopher not of a Rhetorician designing only to present unto your view the truth as it is in its simple and naked Colours without the fucus of Rhetorick Wherefore I shall proceed to the discussion of the Question proposed and in the first place there are two things which offer themselves to be distinctly explicated 1. If the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non esse be absolutely and of it self good or comprehend any absolute bonity in it self which when unfolded will give clearer light to what is the principal quaesitum in the Question 2. If to speak comparatively to be miserable be preferable unto and more eligible than simply not to be For the Resolution of the first I shall lay down this Conclusion Concl. I. That Annihilation or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non esse to speak in absolute terms includes no goodness in it at all nor taken by it self without relâ—tion to any other thing can ever be the object of a Man's Appetite nor move him to the desire and prosecution of it self But that I may evince this more clearly we are to know 1. That I do not deny but Annihilation may be apparently and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good which is only an extrinsecal denomination infixed upon it by an erroneous Intellect So when one desires a thing that is impossible that which he wishes for is not any real entitie yet when an erroneous Intellect represents it under the notion of a possible and withal useful thing it appears as good Wherefore a thing which is of it self impossible and a meer non-entitie may enjoy some apparent goodness accruing unto it from the errour of Intellect as in the Poet though it be utterly impossible to retrieve the loss of time and years past yet the restitution of them is apprehended as good and desirable by Evander But the Question is not concerning this meer apparent bonity since it is acknowledged that non esse may thus be apparently good Wherefore 2. The Question in hand is if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non esse be really and truly good by a real intrinsick bonity whether we think of it and apprehend it as good or not and abstracting from that if it be so truly and by it self good as that it may reasonably be the object of a Man's desire or choice And in this last sense I deny it to be good which I prove thus Reason I. Good do's in its own nature include some positive perfection as Vasques forcibly evinces in 1 Aquin. q. 5. disp 23. c. 5. and as may be easily deduced from the most common and universally known Principles of right reason for all evil is the privation of a due perfection and all evil is likewise the privation of that which is good from whence it necessarily follows that good is the due perfection of a thing and consequently is a positive perfection for what is not positive cannot be the perfection of any thing But to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non esse includes in it self a positive perfection is so absurd as deserves not to be confuted for what positive perfection can be imagin'd or feign'd in a mere negation or non-entitie From all which it manifestly appears that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non esse comprehends in it nothing of goodness or bonity Reason II. As evil does always presuppose a foundation or something which it must be evil unto since it cannot be the privation of a due good unless there be some foundation to which the good is due so by the same chain of reasoning good must still presuppose something unto which it is to be good for since goodness is the adjunct of that subject that is good there is a necessity that there should be some foundation or subject to which this goodness must be adjoyn'd and the foundation or subject which upholds this goodness cannot be of a lesser perfection than the goodness that depends upon it and is upholden by it whence it evidently follows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non esse cannot be the foundation or subject of goodness nor can goodness be the adjunct of a non-entitie and consequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non esse cannot be good which was to be demonstrated Reason III. If goodness were competent not only to an ens but even to its contradictory opposite non ens then would it follow that
the Damned possess And this will seem very plausible if not infallibly true if we consider the folowing Reasons Reason I. That State or Condition must be the better and in conformity to right reason more eligible in which there is no liableness to the Wrath and Anger of God than that which is inevitably followed with the everlasting wrath and displeasure of the Almighty for ever abiding upon those who are plac'd in it But he who is annihilated cannot be the Object of God s wrath since it cannot display it self upon a non entitie Whereas the Divine Wrath doth for ever abide upon those who are eternally tormented Therefore annihilation is preferable to Damnation This Proposition will appear yet more evident if we remember that as God's Love and the enjoyment of him the necessary consequent of the former are the greatest good that a Creature is capable of So the Wrath of God and the want of that fruition are the greatest evil that a Rational Creature can be affected withal Wherefore I form my argument thus If the Wrath of God and the being deprived of the enjoyment of him which necessarily follows on the former be the highest degree of evil that a Creature can be obnoxious unto then it is better to be annihilated than to be lyable to the eternal wrath of God for there is no good that the Creature thus Circumstantiated can possess which should be equivalent to this evil Since the chiefest good which only can counterpoise the greatest evil is incompatible with the highest evil in one and the same subjecâ— Since therefore the damned are in perpetual subjection to the Wrath of God and consequently arriv'd at the highest pitch of misery and since what goâ—d they in this condition enjoy is mixed with so much evil that it cannot be the chiefest good it is better to be annihilated and freed from that greatest evil than to be eteâ—naly damned and endure that extreâ—itâ— oâ— misery though accompanied with a small and far less considâ—rable good Reason II. That State or condition whiâ—h is sinless is more reasonably to be chosen than that in which the Creature is still spitefully blaspheming against God and malitiously hating him But he who is annihilated sinneth not neither indeed can he since he is subject to no Law as being a nâ—n ens for the Law is obligatory upon none but such as are rational Creatures and he who is annihilated is not of that nature Wherefore it is impossible that he should be guilty of sin Whereas the damned who undergo the eternal punishments are still sinning against God in an hideous manner As Aquarius do's expresly prove out of Aquinas in addit ad Capreol in 4. dist 50. Bassol ibid. q. 1. Bonav art 1. q. 1 2. and several others Durandus in 4. dist â—6 q. 5. proves plainly that according to the rules of right Reason it is more eligibâ—e to be annihilated than sin And Anselm lib. â—ur Deus Homo Debemus potius vâ—lle mundum uniâ—ersum annihilari quam aliquid â—â—eri contra voluntatem Dei We should rather wish that the whole universe were annihilated than any thing were done contrary to the will of God Doubt There is only one scruple against this proposition which deserves our consideration and it is this If it be better to be annihilated than to be damned because the annihilated are free from sinning against God and the damned are not then for the same reâ—son it shall be more eligible to be annihilated than live here in this World since the annihilated sin not but the inhabitants of this lower World are daily provoking God with their repeated and hainous trespasses So that it would seem better after this method of reasoning to be annihilated than to live upon Earth But this is absurd Ergo illud ex quo sequitur Answ I shall endeavour to give a satisfactory answer to this Objection in a very few words and 1. I deny that there is any parallel similitude of reason betwixt the antecedent and consequent for although it be most certain that while we live here we are defiled with many sinful spots yet doth it not follow that therefore it is better to be annihilated than to live here The reason is because though in this life we commit many trespasses against God yet sincere repentance for the same which is our duty can procure the the restitution of God's lost favour and countenance and so purge and cleanse us from our polluting transgressions that afterwards we may live a life more innocent and blameless to the Glory of God and the eternal wellfare of our own Souls But the damned who are already at their journeys end are in an unchangeable and lasting condition and their wills are immutably fixed upon evil and that continually For 1. As the Wills of the Glorified are immutably good so those of the damned are unchangeably evil 2. Without the inabling grace of God no Man's Will can be morrally and properly Good but the damned neither have nor hope for Sanctifying Grace in their Hearts each of them outvying one another in spewing out their Venomous and spiteful malice against their Creatour And this the Schoolmen generally approve Aquin. cont Gent. lib. 4. cap. 93. ibid. Ferrariensis And Aquin. in 4. dist 50. q. 2. art 1. Aquar in Addit ad Capre in 4. dist 50. Concl. 1. Upon all which I conclude my last reason to be still firm and valid for the proving my assertion viz. That condition is reasonably more eligible in which there is nor can be no sin than that which in the mind of the Creature is so unchangeably bound up to and steadfastly established in exerting eternal malice against God that it cannot but Sin But the Annihilated neither doth nor can sin and the damned cannot abstain from Sinning therefore the state of the former is more eligible than that of the Latter Reason III. That being or Essence which the damned enjoy is not indulged them for any Good but for a subject and foundation of eternal Torments So that in conformity to right reason it is better to have no being at all than to possess it only in order to be thereby rendred capable subjects of infinite and insupportable Tormnts and fit objects of the eternal vengeance of the Almighty Who would not rather wish to have no Tongue at all than to have it as Dives in the Parable for no other end than to be in everlasting tormenting pains Reason IV. That must be the greatest Evil which destroys the greatest Good for the greatness of the evil must still be esteemed by the value of its opposite Good so blindness is a less evil than infidelity because the good of which infidelity is a privation viz. Faith is a greater good and more valuable than seeing which is the opposite of blindness this being but a natural faculty whereas the othâ—r is a supernatural and divine gift but damnation overthrows a greater good than
also but the former is appropriated to the godly alone Note 3. That by the Light of Nature we do not mean any innate Light which follows us from the Womb as if it were natural ratione subjecti or respectu modi inhaesionis in subjecto For no knowledge either actual or habitual can be natural in that sense since man has not the actual exercise of Reason from his Cradle and so not capable of actual innate knowledge of God and as for Habitual it is evidently included in the formal Essence of all Habits except infused such as this Natural Light is supposed not to be that they are not innate but adventitious and acquired by frequently repeated Acts. My Assertion being thus explain'd I proceed to the probation of the same And that by Reason I. From Rom. 1.19 Where the Apostle speaking of the Gentiles argues thus Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them for God hath shewed it unto them Now the Apostle plainly insinuates that something of God is known unto the Gentiles and that by the Light of Nature for they could not know it by the help of any Revelation Since Scripture they had none and as for immediate Revelation who did ever assert that God hâ—d immediately revealed himself to all the Gentiles of whom the Apostle here speaks So that it was only by the Light of Nature that God was manifest in them Besides no Light of Revelation could have made God manifest in them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for fides revelata as Estius well observes carries not along with it that demonstrative evidence which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports But the Apostle hmself hath put it beyond all doubt while he expresses in the next Verse the way and means whereby they came to this Knowledge viz. by the contemplation of the Creatures For the invisible things of him from the Creation of the World are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made c. which infallibly determines the Question that it was only by the Light of Nature that the Gentiles knew God Reason 2. The general consent of all Nations in acknowledging a God is an infallible demonstration that they knew him by the Light of Nature since it is in it self evident and I have already proved that they had no knowledge of God imparted to them by the means of any supernatural Revelation And this their Universal Knowledge of God yea and of almost all his absolute Attributes is so fully attested by all Writers on that Subject and so evidently deducible from the Sayings and Writings of the Heathens themselves such as Tully Homer Hesiod Plato c. That it shall be needless here to heap up Testimonies to that effect Reason III. There is nothing more evident from the Dictates of Right Reason which are nothing else but the immutable Law of Nature than that God is to be worshiped and consequently that there is a God since the one follows so necessarily upon the other That there is this general Principle in the minds of all men the most barbarous and unpolished Nations do abundantly attest who in every Age have had their Gods and worshiped the same as is evident from the late Discoveries we have made even in this our own Age amongst the most barbarous Indians So that though the understanding of man be darkned by the Fall yet this General Principle That God is and is to be worshiped though the true manner of the Worship of God be not discovered is so firmly rooted in his mind and is as the primum principium or prima veritas infix'd upon his Understanding that it still remains discernable amongst the Rubbish of decayed Nature yea as long as the least spark of understanding is left him he cannot but conclude that God is and is to be worshiped For as the sense of touching though much decayed yet if the least degree of Sensibility be left it cannot but feel the heat of a hot Fire when it approaches to the same because calor is objectum tactûs fortissimè motivum So is it in the understanding of man with respect to this General Principle which is its prima veritas and objectum fortissimè motivum Obj. But the Atheists know no God therefore that Principle is not so firmly rooted in the heart of every man Answer I. This Objection though true would not invalidate my Assertion For I assert only that there is some knowledge of God attainable by the Light of Nature which tho the Atheists perhaps through their neglect of the means appointed by Nature for that effect have never attain'd unto yet it may still be attainable by others or by them if they apply themselves to it Answ II. There are several kinds of Atheists 1. Some are Atheists in practice only who live as if there were not a God 2. In practice and professed Principles too who yet in their heart believe no such thing 3. In Practice Profession and Desire or wishes who wish that there were no God and yet their heart contrary to their Practice and Profession dictates unto them that there is a God 4. There is a kind of Atheists who are called Speculative Atheists who really and in their heart judge that there is no God And of these I say that no man can by a constant perpetual imprejudicate and uninterrupted dijudication conclude that there is no God for though he may for a time or while byassed by prejudice or passion assert some such thing yet some time or other that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will discover it self and the excusing and accusing Conscience will stare him in the face But we shall have occasion afterwards to discourse more at large concerning Atheists Reason IV. We while in the state of Innocence could know God by our Natural Light But by our Fall though our Natural Light be much impair'd yet it is not totally eradicated but some glimmerings are still left us Therefore some knowledge of God though imperfect is likewise left us as attainable by that small degree of Natural Light which we still possess For God being the Principium primarium and objectum intellectûs fortissimè motivum as long as there is any degree of light left as that thereby we can discover any thing we cannot but see that there is a God As if we should suppose any thing endowed with a perfect clear sightedness in order to view the Sun and the Stars and if all that sight were decayed excepting only one degree it might perhaps nâ—â— perceive the lesser Stars which have a weaker impression on the Organ of seeing but as for the Sun which is the objectum visûs fortissimè motivum it could not but have some small and imperfect perception of it as long as the least degree of sight were left it So it is with the understanding of Man in relation to God which though it cannot perceive many other lesser truths or
though it cannot perceive God who is the prima veritas in as perfect a manner as it did in the State of Innocence yet having some small degree of Natural Light still remaining it possesses some imperfect perceptive knowledge of that Sun of Righteousness who is the objectum intellectualis visûs fortissimè motivum Having thus dispatched my First Assertion that there is a Natural Knowledge of God I come now to my Second concerning the Quality and manner of this Knowledge and it is this Assertion II. This Knowledge which we have of God by the Light of Nature is not acquir'd by any Demonstration à priori and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they call it That is such a Demonstration as proves the Effect by its Natural Causes This Conclusion is so evident that it needs no probation For since God is the first cause of all things where can we find a principle or cause prior to him whereby to demontrate his Existence a priori Besides what kind of cause would that be which is demonstrative of God's Existence a priori An Internal Cause it cannot because God who is simplicity in the abstract admits of no Natural or Formal Causes Neither is it external because God who is the first efficient and ultimate final cause of all things can have none such prior to himself For he who is eternal can have no principium prius to himself else he would not be eternal since aeternitas dicit negationem principii And if we should assign him any prior cause all his infnitude should quickly fall to the ground since it is inconsiâ—â—ent that an Infinite Being should any manner of way depend upon another Obj. Objicit Suarez Though we cannot demonstrate God a priori by his quidditie or essence as such yet we may know him by his attributes which though really identificate are by our reason conceived as distinct from and in some manner prior to his Essence Answ The proving of God by his Attributes is so far from being a demonstratio à priori that it is rather a posteriori for all Attributes are posterior to the essence neither can we feign an Attribute unless we suppose an Essence to which it should be an Attribute so that if the attribute be only ratione distinctum from its Essence it is ratione posterius if it be re distinctum it is à parte rei posterius Assertion 3. That knowledge of God which is acquir d by natural light is not so comprehensive or adequate as to include all the perfections of the Godhead And that for these Reasons Reason I. Because a finite faculty or power such as the understanding of Man is cannot comprehend an infinite being there being no such proportion betwixt finitum and infinitum as could allow an adequate comprehension II. Adam in the state of innocence could not by his natural light adequately comprehend God and all his perfections for the reason already assign'd much less we the Posteâ—â—ty of fallen Adam who have but a small remainder of that light left us III. If the natural understanding of Man could comprehend God adequately then God could not know more of himself than Man does who knows him adequately sed hoc est absurdum Ergo illud ex quo sequitur IV. Our natural knowledge of God is drawn from the Contemplation of the Creature but the Creature is not an effect adequate unto the power of God for he could have created many more Worlds than this if he would Therefore it cannot furnish us with an adequate knowledge of God V. We do not perfectly know the nature of the least Herb or pile of grass how can we therefore pretend to know and comprehend fully the infinite and incomprehensible God Assertion 4. The knowledge of God by the light of Nature being so imperfect as that it cannot comprehend and be adequate unto the nature of God is not of it self sufficient to inform us of the way and manner of that Worship which we his Creatures owe unto him For the understanding of this we are to Observe Note 1. That Natural light teaches us indeed in the general that God is to be Worshiped but since it is God that requires and is to be honoured by this Worship it must depend upon his will what manner of worship we perform unto him for if we should worship God in any manner or way that he has not prescribed or wherewith he is not well pleased it were better for us not to worship him at all because this is only the meer privation of the Worship due by us to God but the other is not only the privation of the due Worship but likewise a superaddition of an idolatrous and superstitious performance Note 2. That we cannot better know the will of God concerning what worship he requires at our hands than by the Covenant he hath made unto Mankind Because therein God hath given promises unto Man upon condition of his performance of that Worship which he justly required of him and for which we stand indebted to God by vertue of that Covenant we have entred into with him Note 3. There being but two Covenants betwixt God and Man viz. the Covenant of Works or Nature and the Covenant of Grace I assert that the light of fallen Nature is not sufficient fully and exactly to direct us in the compleat performance of that Worship which is justly required of us by God in either of these two Covenants And that for these following Reasons Reason I. This Light of Nature is not sufficient to direct us in performing that Worship which we owe to God by vertue of the Covenant of Works or Nature because the Worship that is due unto God by the Covenant of Nature is a full and compleat obedience to the Law of Nature But our natural light cannot fully discover unto us what the Law of Nature is without the knowledge of which we cannot perfectly obey the same for by the fall we have lost the greatest and best part of our Natural Light and so have lost our knowledge of the Law of Nature as cannot but be evident unto any that considers how the Heathen Nations have err'd in Worshipping God according to the Law of Nature yea the most polish'd and civiliz'd amongst them have run into the greatest depths of Idolatry and Superstition in offering up Sacrifices even to the Devil himself and that not only the generality and commoner sort but the 〈◊〉 Men and Sages amongst them such 〈◊〉 â—ristotle Plato Socrates Pythagoras 〈◊〉 have joyned issue with the same ridiculous way of Worship concluding that thereby they performed acceptable service to the Gods Reason II. The light of Nature which Adam had in the state of innocence was no more than sufficient to direct him in the performance of that service he often unto God for the gifts wherewithal God endowed Adam were not supersâ—â—â—es but necessary and no more than sufficient for compassing their respective endâ— so
that tho' he had performed all the service and obedience that 〈◊〉 he 〈◊〉 of it was no more than what was 〈◊〉 Now since the Light of Nature 〈◊〉 perfect and in the state of innocence was no more than sufficient what can we imagine of our decayed lapsed and dim light which comes so far short of the former Whereas if it could teach us how to obey perfectly the Law of Nature it shâ—uld be fully equal unto and run parallel with the same Reason III. This Natural light is much less capable to teach us the manner of that Worship which we owe unto God by vertue of the Covenant of Grace Because the Worship required therein is obedience unto God through Faith in Christ Jesus taking hold of the promises tender'd to us in his holy Gospel which Natural Reason can never conceive being ignorant both of the Object of this Gospel-Worship and the manner in which the same is to be perform'd as I shall more fully evince afterwards Assertion Fifth No Man by the sole light of Natural Reason without the help of Revelation can ever discover or comprehend that Sacred Mystery of the Holy Trinity viz. the distinct Hypostases of the Father Son and Holy Ghost one God Reason 1. Because if this Sacred Mystery had been cognoscible by the light of Nature then Pythagoras Plato Homer Aristotle c. would probably have known it But they have all past it over with a profound ignorant silence and where is the Man that hath ever discover'd it by the light of Nature Reason II. If the Mystery of the Trinity were cognoscible by the light of Nature then it would be such either as a principium unto which upon the first proposal we assent without any further probation or as a Proposition unto which we assent upon sufficient and demonstrative probation But to assert the former viz. that the Trinity is per se notum as a principium or axioma is too absurd and ridiculous to be refuted Besides many of the Schoolmen have deny'd that Deum esse is per se notum But we cannot assert Deum esse trinum unless we suppose Deum esse Ergo if the one be not of it self evident far less the other As to the other membrum viz. that it is cognoscible by us as a proposition which we assent unto upon sufficient and demonstrative probation Contrà All these propositions tho' they be not so evident as on the first proposal to gain an assent yet they are such as Nature can furnish us with sufficient media and praemissae whereby to know and prove their certainty as for Example This proposition God is infinite tho' iâ— be not of it self evident at the first proposal yet it is said to be cognoscible by the light of Nature because Nature can furnish us with sufficient means whereby to prove its certainty But this Mystery of the Sacred Trinity of the Persons in the Godhead is so far from being such as Nature could furnish us with media to prove its certainty that if it do not seemingly contradict Nature yet it far transcends its power to conceive what it is But 2. to use Aquinas's argument There is no other mean whereby we can ascend to the knowledge of God but by the Creature and all the knowledge we have of God from the Creatures is only deduc'd per modum Causalitatis as because I see such an effect therefore I conclude there must be a Cause endow'd with Power Wisdom c. Now how can the Trinity be deduced from the Creatures per modum Casaulitatis For God could have Created all the Creatures though he had not been trinus because the Divine Essence of the Father is a suppositum insinitae virtutis tho' there were no more persons in the Godhead than himself Assertion Sixth No Man can by the Light of Nature know the Works of the Second Person in the Trinity viz. his Redemption of Mankind his wonderful Incarnation Death and Resurrection c. Reason I. Because I have already proved that the three Persons of the Godhead cannot be known by Nature Light and consequently not the Second Person but if the Second Person be not known neither can the Works done by him be discovered that is quoad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to that special incommunicable manner and way that they were performed in by Jesus Christ It 's true indeed that the Redemption of the World is an opus ad extrà and competent to all the Persons of the Trinity and so may in some sense seem to be known by the help of Natural Light without the distinct knowledge of the Person of Christ But the particular and special way in which it was accomplish'd by him can never be known naturally for there were many things relating to that done in his Humane Nature such as his Death Resurrection c. which cannot be known without the knowledge of his Humane Nature whereas the Humanity and Miraculous Incarnation of one who is God is above the reach of Natural Reason to know Reas II. If any such thing had been cognoscible by Natural Reason it 's probable the Heathens would have found it but we find no such thing among them Ergo c. Reas III. It is not possible that the light of fallen Nature should know more of God and Christ than when it was in its Primitive Innocence but then it did not so much as Dream of the Death of Christ for the sins of the World Ergo c. Reas IV. The Redemption of the World by Christ depending upon and flowing from the meer good Will and Pleasure of God could never have naturally been foreseen before it came nor when accomplish'd understood by any except those unto whom God graciously reveal'd the same For how can any thing depending on God's free will be known by Natural Light since all the natural knowledge we have of God is by way of causality from the Creatures But the free Redemption of the World by Jesus Christ can never be deduced from the existence of the Creature by way of causality as though it be naturally known that Man is a sinner and miserable yet does it not follow that therefore God designs to redeem him by Christ no more than from the misery of some of the Angels can it be deduced that therefore God designs to redeem them by Christ Besides Man is fallen into this Misery by his own fault and it were just with God to leave him to wallow in that Misery that he hath purchased to himself for ever wherefore since God is no way obliged to Redeem Man how can we make the Misery of the Creature an Argument that he has or had any actual design to redeem the same yea dato non concesso that our own Miseries could demonstrate that God had a design to free us from it yet it could never discover that particular special way whereby our freedom is purchased viz. by the Blood of Christ
since the infinite Wisdom of God if so it had pleased him might have contriv'd many other ways and methods whereby to relieve us from our natural Slavery and Thraldom Reas V. We are not capable to know the free and deliberate purposes of Men much less those purposes of God all whose Counsels are unsearchable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which depend on his meer free Will and Pleasure unless he graciously vouchsafe to reveal the same unto us for if we could by Natural Light discover this one decree or purpose of the Redemption of Man by Christ then by the same consequence we might naturally know all the hidden Decrees and Counsels of God Quod est absurdo absurdius Er. c. Reas VI. That the Incarnation of the Son of God and the Redemption of the World by his Blood is a Mystery above the reach of Humane Knowledge to perceive is the constant eccho of almost every Page in the N. Test As St. Paul while speaking to the Colossians concerning the same Col. 1.16 saith Even the Mystery which hath been hid from Ages and Generations but now is made manifest to his Saints To whom God would make known what is the riches of the Glory of this Mystery among the Gentiles which is Christ in you the hope of Glory And according to St. Augustine it is essential to a Mystery that it be only cognoscible by Revelation But what more evident Testimony can there be than the general contradiction these Doctrines met with from People of all Ranks even in the Apostles days not only the commoner sort but even the greatest Doctors and those who had most improved their Natural Reason among the Athenians Romans Jews c. who laugh'd and flouted at the Apostles for Preaching such seemingly Irrational Doctrines Vid. Acts 17.18 19 20 32. Objection Many of the Heathens 〈◊〉 clearly printed at Christ by the meer 〈◊〉 of Nature as may be seen by the Oracles of the Sibyllae Zoroaster Trismegistus Hydaspes Orpheus c. where we find many things concerning the Trinity of the Persons the Redemption of the World by Christ and many other Gospel Truths Answ 1. As to the Sybilline Oracles there are a great many things go under that Name which are not genuine and true such as that Sibylla was in the Ark with Noah in the time of the Deluge which is openly false since Moses is generally acknowledged to be the Ancientest Writer which he could not be if Sibylla had been before him that the Sibylline Oracles were written 500 Years after the beginning of the Grecian Empire which would make the Oracles to be posteriour to the execution of the things themselves though ye reckon the beginning of the Grecian Empire from what Date ye will and many other such like palpable Errours as Dionys Halic Cornelius Tacitus and many others do abundantly evince Nevertheless I acknowledge that there are many things concerning Christ which are really the genuine Off-spring of Sibylla such as the Verses of Sibylla Cumaea paraphras'd by Virgil in his 4th Lelog the which though the Poet apply to Pollio's Son yet they are properly and roundly applicable to none but Christ as Eusebius shews at large in Orat. Constan ad Sanct. Coel. cap. 20. the Acrostick Verses of Sibylla Erythraea set down by Eusebius and demonstrated by him not to be spurious which is likewise confest by Dionys Halicarn These Acrostick Verses do so plainly point at Christ that the Initial Letters make up these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour Cross But all this doth in nothing infringe my Assertion because though Sibylla foretold Christ yet it follows not that therefore she knew him by Natural Light but only by Revelation Hence the Sibyllae were generally accounted Prophetesses that spoke not according to their own Natural Light but as they were inspired by God and were termed by the Ancients foeminae numine correptae afflatae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as Lactantius (a) Iust l. 1. p. 23. Eustathius (b) ad Homer B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strabo (c) Geogr. l. 14. p. 1614. Suidas (d) Lib. 17. 171. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Mantacutius (e) Apparat. 3. Num. 28. c. do plainly testifie Instatur How comes it to pass that Sibylla should speak more plainly of Christ than the Prophets in the Old Testament For the Psalmist says Psal 147.19 20. He shewed his word unto Jacob his Statutes and Judgments unto Israel He hath not dealt so with any Nation and as for his Judgments they have not known them And the Apostle to the Collossians ch 1. v. 26 27. calls the Incarnation of Christ a Mystery hid from Ages Answ 1. Perhaps she might pronounce many things which she did not understand her self as being design'd for the future benefit of the Church rather than her own of this Opinion was Justin Mart. and Montacutius in this compares her to Balaam's Ass but Eusebius seems rather to incline unto this that she spoke these Oracles only for her own private comfort and benefit as being pick'd out by God for an Object unto which he pleased to manifest himself and impart the knowledge of the truth Either of these is consonant enough with the Analogy of Faith and the Justice of God who discovers himself to whom he will though out of the visible Communion of the Church Militant 2. When the Apostle says the Incarnation of Christ was a Mystery hid from Ages it is not to be understood as if it absolutely excluded all knowledge of that Mystery for the Fathers under the Old Testament knew Christ though darkly and as it is elegantly expressed by the Apostle in Heb. 11.13 where reckoning up a Catalogue of the Faithful Patriarchs he subjoyns These all Died in the Faith not having received the Promises but having seen them afar off c. that is having had a weak imperfect and faint view of them as we see things afar off Yea not only they but the Gentiles had this dark knowledge of it as (a) Aquin. 2. 2. qu. 2. Art 7. ad tertium Aquinas evidently proves from that saying of Job's ch 19. I know that my Redeemer liveth c. So that the meaning of this saying of the Apostle must be that it was hid from Ages with respect to the degree and manner of knowledge since this Mystery was never so fully reveal'd and perfectly known till the coming of Christ and was formerly kept secret they saw it but very darkly whereas we now enjoy a far clearer Light which dispels those Mystical Clouds that formerly it was inveloped in 3. As for that saying of the Psalmist it cannot be understood as if the Nations were totally ignorant of the Divine Law since they had the Law of Nature and Moral Law written upon their Hearts by God's own Finger And yet still there is a sufficient difference betwixt the Jews and the Gentiles which might give the
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
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