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
those Gratian speaks home to this point in another (k) Gratian. Can. Didicimus 31. Caus 24. Quaest 1. Canon The Lemma or Title to the Canon is this Sacri Officii potestate PENITVS CARENT HAERETICI c. And the words of the Canon if that be possible are more express Dicimus OMNES OMNINO HAERETICOS NIL habere potestatis Juris And Card. Turre-Cremata explains the Canon thus (l) Card. de Turrecremata ad Can. Didicimus 31. Caus 24. Quaest 1. § 1. Potestas vel est Sacramentalis seu Ordinis vel Jurisdictionis The first being indeleble and permanent may be in Hereticks Quoad esse sed non quoad usum and yet if they do use it what they do will be valid But for the Potestas Jurisdictionis that is utterly lost by Hereticks Their Heresie deprives them of all their Ecclesiastical Authority and Jurisdiction si quid fecerint NIL ACTVM ERIT Whatever they do is null This their Canonists and Casuists constantly say and that so far that if the Pope be an Heretick as sure enough he is Jure suo excidit he ceases to be Pope The same Cardinal does not only say this but seriously indeavour to (m) Idem Ibidem § 2. prove it And as great a Cardinal and Canonist as he tells us (n) Card. Tuschus Conclus practicarum Tom. 4. Tit. H. Concl. 102. § 18. Sicut Clericus PRIVATVR IPSO JVRE beneficio dignitate SI SIT HAERETICVS Ita PAPA privatur Papatu Reges regno Imperator Imperio quia in istis fidei causis nulla ese distinctio This is their doctrine at Rome erroneous and impious yet if they think Heresy of such pernicious nature that it deprives even their Pope of all his Papal Jurisdiction it is a less wonder if they think it deprives heretical Bishops such as they think all Protestant Bishops to be of all their Episcopal Jurisdiction 3. All Protestants especially the Bishops being Hereticks in the Popish account they are ipso facto and by their law excommunicate as is evident by their (o) Vid. Cap. ad abolendum 9. extra de Haereticis cap. excommunicamus 13. Ibid. caput Noverit 49. extra De sent excommunicat c. Canons and their Bulla (p) In Bullario Cherubini Romae 1638. Tom. 4. Bullae Vrbani 8. 62. p. 76. Caenae wherein the Pope once every year on Maundy Thursday excommunicates and Anathematizes all Hereticks Lutherans (q) Omnes Lutheranos Zuinglianos Calvinistas c. Ibid. § 1. and Calvinists particularly and by name expresly Now such excommunication takes effect immediately without expecting the Judges Sentence Iste talis says (r) Stephan de Avila de Censuris Ecclesiast part 1. Dub. 7. p. 9 c. a great Canonist statim incurret censuram nullâ expectatâ Iudicis Sententiâ est communis Doctorum est Textus in Cap. Pastoralis § Verum De Appellat ubi dicitur quod excommunicatio secum trahit executionem And a greater than he expresly says the same thing (Å¿) Card. Toâ—et Instruct Sacerd. lib. 1. cap. 11. § 12. p. 49. Vid. Cajâ—tani Summulam verbo excommunicatio Covarrutium part 1. Relect. 1. Alma Mater § 7. De Excommunica ejus effectu operum Tom. 1. p. 346. c. Vincent Fil lincium Moâ—al um Quaest Tractat. 22. cap. 7. De Paenis Haeretiâ—oâ—um c. excommunicatio secum trahit executionem INHABILITAT quoad omnes ejus partes illum qui in eam incidit absque alia declaratoriâ c. But there needs no more for 't is certain that all contumacious Hereticks as to them all our Bishops are being actually excommunicate as all such Hereticks solemnly are once a year are ipso facto deprived of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and therefore they of Rome do not only say but by their received Law and Canons must say that our Bishops have no Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical and so all their Judgments and Judicial Sentences null and invalid Lastly It is to me a wonder that any knowing person should think that the King and Bishops of England should have no power to Question the Sentence pass'd in the Arch-bishop of Turins Consistory when they do and ought to do so question and justly condemn the Sentence of the Pope in many things concerning Matrimony pass'd in their General Council of Trent And have not the King and Bishops power to do a native and born subject of England right because a Popish Bishop by an injust Sentence has done him wrong Dare any Bishop in England say that the Sentence of the Arch-bishop of Turin unexamin'd or the just reason of it not appearing is a just ground to quite Mr. Cottington's or any Man's Conscience so that he may safely and without Sin co-habit with Gallina her former Husband being yet alive sure I am none should or justly can and therefore I hope none will say so I am Your affectionate Friend and Servant T. L. August 14. 1677. The Bishop being writ to to send an account out of the Casuistical directorys for Confessors about the sins proper for Kings to be interrogated about in Confession return'd this answer Sir Edit Lugduni An. 1646. ANTONIVS Escobar Theologiae moralis Tractat. 1. Examine 12. cap. 1. pag. 147. put this Question Quinam ad praeceptum divinum Confessionis obligantur And then his Answer is this Fideles omnes adulti qui accepto baptismo lethaliter deliquerunt And then Tractatu 2. Examin 3. cap. 3. p. 261. He puts this Question De Papa Num Pontificis Summi delicta memorabimus which he answers thus Profecto suprema ecclesiae potestas haud est fragilitatis humanae incusanda quare nulla Papae exprimam crimina sanctissimus enim Ecclesiae vertex Sanctissimis operibus operam dabit Si autem aliquid humanitati indulserit sapientissimus ille muneris tantionera non ignorabit Idem Ibidem p. 261. De Regibus De Regum vitiis haec habet Regum igitur ac Superiorum Principum accusationem praetendo And then he brings in a King confessing amongst other these sins ita propria bona dissipavi ut aliena aggressus fuerim usurpare subditos nimium molestis tributis aggravando debita non solvendo ingentem vim auri argenti subditorum injuriâ accumulavi Leges poenales non in delictorum repressionem sed in subditorum expilationem indixi Morti deputavi aut gravi supplicio vivum inauditum non intercedente gravissimâ causâ leges Ecclesiasticae immunitati repugnantes praescripsi Advertenter Iudices indoctos creavi vel cognitâ postmodum eorum insufficientiâ non illico amovi Johan Azorius a Jesuit too Institutionum Moralium part 2. lib. 11. cap. 7. p. 1105 1108. Edit Lugduni 1616. Has a long Catalogue of the Sins of Kings not of such sins as are common to Kings and private men but such as are peculiar to Kings for so he says and amongst others he reckons those
rights of the People 3. The Elected King at his Inauguration Swears to observe Faithfully those pacta conventa 4. Amongst those Capitulations to which he Swears this is one That if he do not according to his Oath keep those Capitulations then the Archiepscopus Guintisnensis Primate of Poland is privately to admonish him then if he do not mend he is to admonish him more publickly before the great Lords And if he continue incorrigible the Archbishop may send out an Edict to prohibit the Nation to give him Obedience or any part of his Revenue in short to depose him I am Your Affectionate Friend and Servant Thom. Lincolne Coll. Oxon. Aug. 23. 1675. The Bishop being writ to on occasion of a Friends desiring to know whether the Famous saying of Res nolunt malè Administrari of which a Gentleman in London pretends himself to be the Author had not its Origine from Aristotles Metaphisicks to which Venerable Bede in his Philosophical Axiomes refers in his citing the saying his Lordship return'd the following Answer Sir FOR that Axiome of Bede which you mention Entia nolunt malè disponi I have Bedes works and I find amongst his Axiomata Philosophica this Axiome in these words Nolunt entia malè gubernari (b) Beda inter Axiomata Philosophica Tom. Operum 2. pag. 151. litera N. But for the second Book of Aristotles Metaphysicks to which it seems your Book refers there is no such Axiome there Nor any thing that may give any ground for it unless they may relate to one passage in that second Book where speaking of the difficulty to understand some things he says (c) Aristotelis Metaph. lib. 2. cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the cause of that difficulty is not in the things themselves but in us We through the weakness of our understandings may mistake and several Men may have several Opinions of the same things but the nature of the things is fix'd and the same though Men by mistake may think otherwise Whereas you say that there is a Gentleman in your great Town who pretends to be Author of that Axiome I do confess you have in your Town many Errors more impious but hardly more ridiculous For venerable Bede dyed in the Year 735. that is 949. since and Bede as by his Works is evident has that Axiome in terminis so unless that Gentleman be Older than Bede which I believe he is not he cannot be Author of that Axiome I shall say no more save that you may and I hope will believe that I am July 29. 1684. Your Faithful Friend and Servant T. L. A Letter of the Bishop about Natural Allegiance and of Kingly Power being from God and Confuting my Lord Shaftsbury's Speech in the House of Lords for the contrary c. Sir IN your Letter you desire some things of me which jure tuo you may command 1. That I would name to you some of our Divines who have ex professo writ of natural Allegiance To this I would say 1. That what our Lawyers say I doubt not but you well know yet let me commend to your perusal if you have not met with it before Spelmans Glossary who was neither professed Lawyer nor Divine yet a very learned Antiquary and has said some things of Allegiance which are considerable in his last Edition Printed Anno. 1664. under the word Fidelitas For though he have the word Allegiancia in his Glossary yet he has nothing upon it there 2. For Divines it belongs to them to speak of Kings and the Allegiance due to them only so far as they have Scripture for their Rule Now which of our Divines have writ of the Natural Allegiance due to Kings I do not at present remember nor in the extraordinary trouble and business I now am have I time to inquire Sure I am 1. That no Common-wealth or any such popular Government is ever heard of or once nam'd in Scriptures Though the Author of Oceana I think Harrington was his name and his party say That God by Moses Established his People in a Common-wealth But this they say in contradiction 1. To the Learnedst Jews Josephus Philo c. who say it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Government wherein God himself was King a Theocratia or a Divine Monarchy Wherein God himself was King not only in a general way as he is King of all the World but to the Jews particularly as much and as particularly as the Kings of England or Spain are to their Kingdoms For 1. God (a) 1. Sam. 8.7 himself says he was their King 2. And Samuel (b) 2. Sam. 10.19 and 12.12 tells them so too 3. God was a particular Lawgiver to the Jews not so to any other Nation he personally gave them all their Laws 4. He did personally appoint his Viceroys and Deputies Moses Josua c. 5. God did receive all their appeals and personally answered them by Urim c. Again Divines may evidently conclude out of Scripture That Kings and their Royal Power is 1. A Deo jure divino 2. Non a Populo no not in Elective Kingdoms as in Poland for in the Elective Kingdoms designatio personae may be in the People Yet Collat. Authoritatis Regiae est a solo Deo 3. Non a Papa 4. Non a Lege My Lord 〈…〉 House in a long Speech to prove Kings were not jure divino told us that Kings were A lege it was the Law that made them Kings which was Seditious and Ridiculous For I would gladly know who made that Law which made the Kings Certainly the King did not make it for that Law which made the King must of necessity precede and be before the King who had his Royal Power and Kingly Office from that Law Nor was there ever in this Nation any other Power to make such a Law For this Nation so far as we have any History that mentions it was ever Governed by Kings So in the times of the Brittains Romans Saxons Danes and Normans Kingly Government was Established here Sed transeat cum caeteris erroribus I am Sir Your Affectionate Friend and faithful Servant Tho. Lincolne A Letter answering some Queries about Abby-Lands and about the Opinions of Calvin and Luther of the punishing of Hereticks SIR AS to your first Question about the value of Abby-Lands your Calculation is ingenious and if the Revenue was no more than that your Author says the poor Monks had very short Allowance But he who says the whole Revenue of all the Abby-Lands was no more than 261100 l. per Annum is much mistaken for undoubtedly it was far more Weaver in his Antiquities of Canterbury has something of it and Sir William Dugdale in his Monasticon but I neither remember what they say nor have I time to consult them 2. As to your Query What Calvin's Opinion was of burning a whole City for Idolatry in his Commentary on Deut. 13.15
Biretti the Italian in the Talents of Dissimulation after he had inveigled your vertuous young Kinswoman according to the forementioned Expressions of Bishop Taylor to marry her very Soul to him and to have her Heart bound up in his did in the Marriage by the Minister and all the Subsequent Acts of the Ratifications of it intend nothing of consent to Marriage and did throughout only intend to debauch her I think a Compensation for your Kinswoman's Dammage ought to be made For according to the Expression used in some Declarations at Common Law by a Woman suing for Dammages there viz. Per quod Maritagium amisit Your Kinswoman's being hindred in future Marriage with another person is obvious to any one's Thoughts and because the commencing a Suit and exhibiting her Libell there will bring the Facts before mentioned the more into the eyes and ears and tongues of the World I account that the weight of her Dammages will not be so great before a Suit begins as it will be afterwards This is all I have to say at present of this Matter I remain Sir Your very Humble Servant P. P. A Divine in the Bishop of Lincoln's Dioces afterward writing to his Lordship to request his Judgment in point of Conscience about the Marriage of Mr. P. and Mrs. C. the Bishop under his hand return'd him the following Answer viz. Mr. Bewerrin I Received your Letter with the Papers you sent with it and this comes with my Love and Due Respects to return my Thanks for your Kindness and Civility to me express'd in it What you say of my willingness to assist my Brethren of the Clergy is true I am and according to my Ability and Duty ever shall be willing to assist them in all their Concerns Spiritual or Temporal Concerning the Case of Mr. Ps. Marriage I am of Sir P. Petts Opinion But if you or any of Mr. P.'s Friends be of the contrary Opinion If I may have their Reasons for it I shall if they be cogent and conclusive submit and subscribe them But if not I shall take them for Objections and endeavour to answer them You in your Letter desire me to state the Case which I cannot clearly and fully do with satisfaction to my self or others unless I have the Reasons of both Parties concern'd which as yet I have not had The very troublesome Circumstances I am now in will not permit me to study the Case with that diligence it requires but if I may have the Reasons against Sir P. Petts Opinion I shall take time to state the Case I can only add That I am Buckden June 6. 1691. Your loving Friend and Brother Thomas Lincolniensis A Letter asserting the King 's not being by Scripture prohibited to pardon Murther Sir I Have received yours and for the Objection Gen. 9.6 He that sheds Mans Blood by Man shall his blood be shed I shall say a few things and leave them to your better judgment and consideration 1. It is certain that there were three Persons and but three which could oblige all the World with positive Laws 1. Adam 2. Noah who were both Capita 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greek Fathers call them Monarchs of the whole World 3. Our blessed Saviour Those three persons had power to make Positive Laws to oblige the whole World 2. What Laws Adam or Noah made who in their times were Fathers of the whole World obliged all their posterity 3. What ever positive Laws God gave to Adam or Noah those Laws did bind them and all the World 4. That God did give any positive Law to Adam to punish Murder with Death we read not nay we read but of two Murderers in the time before the Flood Cain and Lamech and of Cain it was Gods express (a) Gen. 4.15 will that he should not be put to Death though it was a most horrid Murther for killing Abel and for (b) Gen. 4.23.24 Lamech we have nothing in Scripture that he was punish'd with Death or that God had then before the Flood given any positive Law to make Murther Capital 5. But to Noah God did by a positive Law make Death the punishment of Murther and this Law bound him and all his posterity to whom it was sufficiently published as it is to us in Scripture 6. So that he who sheds Mans blood by Man shall his blood be shed That 's the punishment God has appointed for Murther the Murtherers blood shall be shed by Man But then 1. Not by every Man but by the Magistrate No private Man has or ever had power to put any Man to Death though he never so much deserv'd it that the Magistrate only had power to do 2. Nor could every Murtherer be put to Death by that Law given to Noah and so to the World in him for if Noah or any supream power had committed Murther he could not be put to Death 1. Because he had no superior who had power to punish him 2. Because he could not punish himself by taking away his own Life so that all that this Text proves is this The Magistrate might and regularly ought to punish Murther with Death But that the supream power who could not by that Law be punished himself might not in some Cases all Circumstances considered pardon a Murtherer this Law proves not either in express terms or by any good Consequence And this I am the more apt to believe 1. Because it is most certain that there were circumstances and reasons for which our most just God pardon'd Cain as to the punishment by Death so there may be in some Cases such Circumstances which may be just reasons for supream powers who are Gods Vice-gerents to pardon Murther 2. Because I find in Scripture that above 500. years after the giving that Law to Noah Simeon and Levi Jacobs Sons cruelly (a) Gen. 34.25 Murthered the Shechemites and yet were pardon'd neither Jacob nor Isaac who was then (b) Gen. 35.29 living those two excellent and most pious persons executed that Law upon them which had they believ'd it obligatory they would certainly have done As to what you say concerning the Opinions of our own and Foreign Divines in this Case I know there are different Opinions as in other Cases there are and I shall neither trouble you nor my self with them It is not Opinions but Reason which should guide us to the belief of any Conclusion and I believe that there are evident Reasons for the truth I have asserted and then if you tell me of 20. who say otherwise unless they bring good Reason for what they say I shall not much regard them Buckden Jan. 29. 1684. Your most obliged thankful and faithful Servant Thomas Lincolne An Account of Guymenius his Famous or rather Infamous Book apologizing for the Jesuits Tenets about Morals Sir I Received yours and with my Love and Service return my Thanks For what You inquire concerning Amadaeus Guymenius whether he was a
Book So he boasts and so adds our Prefacer 't is possible he may believe though he can have but little Reason for it because it is impossible he should have any at all and much less any clear Reason to prove positions so evidently untrue as those he advances upon which occasion our R. Prefacer begs leave by way of Reflection to say 1. That he wonders not that all Popish Writers in general should Rail so Blasphemously against the Bible and so bitterly against Protestants because 't is manifest there are no Christians in the World whose Doctrine is so agreeable to that Holy Book as theirs nor any Book when seriously Read and believed so contrary to and destructive of Popish Principles as that of the Sacred Scriptures for which Reason those Politick Adversaries forbid them to be Read in any Vulgar Tongue by any Unlearned or Unlicensed Person of their Communion the (a) See the Rules drawn up by a Select Committe of Fathers of that Council about prohibited Books and approv'd by Pope Pius IV. at Rule 4. at the end of the Edition of that Council set forth by Phil. L. Abb. at 1667. pag. 233. Trent Fathers with shameless Blasphemy not sticking to Declare that if those Holy Writings tho' inspired by the Holy Ghost as says the Apostle John 20. v. 30 31. should be suffered to be Read Promiscuously by the People in a known Tongue (b) Being the true sense of the words of the said IV. Rule they would do them more mischief than good nay adds he 't is plain they think the Reading of the Gospel in any Vulgar Tongue would be more pernicious to their Religion than the Reading of the Alcoran in the like Tongue because they allow the Reading of the Alcoran but have lately and publickly damn'd not only the Gospels but even their own Missal in French as very well knowing that Divine Truth such as is contianed in the Gospel and sparkles here and there even up and down among the Rubbish of their own Missal as corrupt as 't is is more destructive of Errour than any one Errour is of another 2. When he scurrilously Reviles the King and Parliament by the abuseful Names of Hereticks and Schismaticks our R. Prefacer would fain know what warrant he has from any Law or from Reason or Scripture to Revile any Supream or subordinate Power Ruling over the People such a practice being Condemn'd by the Laws of England which make it High Treason to call our Sovereign (a) 13. Eliz. cap. 1. Heretick or else makes it such a Crime as (b) Stat. 13. Car. 2. cap. 1. and Crooks Reports part 2. pag. 38. incapacitates the offenders from holding any Place Office or Promotion Ecclesiastical Civil or Military besides rendering them liable to other Punishments by the said Laws provided And contrary to the Divine Laws as appears Exod. 22 28. Where God by Moses forbids us to Curse the Ruler of the People no not in our heart adds Solomon Eccles 10.20 Which Mosaical Law St. Paul cites as a Natural and Moral Law still in force under the Gospel Acts 23.5 Which he renders there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shale not speak Evil of the Ruler of thy People to shew us that Moses's Expression of Cursing extends of all manner of Blaspheming or Evil speaking which is further confirm'd by St. Peter though his pretended Vicar has learnt to speak loftier Language who reckons them that speak Evil of Dignities among Capital Sinners 2. pet 2.10 as does also St. Jude v. 8 9. telling us that even Michael the Arch-Angel durst not bring a railing Accusation against the Devil himself Whereas now not only the Pope but every Paultry Popish Pamphleter dares treat Christian Kings and the greatest Protestant Divines worse than St. Michael durst the Arch-Devil he had to deal with As appears by the Excommunication of Hen. 8. by Pope Paul 3. and of Q. Elizabeth by Pius V. Where Luther is called the Foster Son of Perdition the English Clergy Wicked Ministers of Impiety and Henry VIII A Heretick who by the Instigation of the Devil committed Sacriledge for Alienating Abby Lands upon which occasion our Prefacer asks if Hen. VIII were Sacrilegious in Alienating those Lands what was the perpetual Alienation of them confirm'd by Pope Julius III. and Q. Mary and her Popish Parliament and Convocation Vid. Stat. 1. 2. Mariae cap. 8. And for one other Instance of their skill in Rayling Rhetorick he cites the Bull of the Canonization of Ignatius Loyola Dated at Rome 8th of the Ides of August i. e. the 6th of August 1623. Sect. 1. Where Luther is called a most pernicious and detestable plaguy Monster Monstrum Teterrimum Detestabilis pestis being the very words of that Bull. Upon which our Prefacer proceeds to tell us That though he thinks that none but such who are hardened by strong delusion to believe a Lye can possibly believe That the Protestant Religion is Heresie or Heathenism or that 't is Ridiculous or Idolatrous or again that the Protestant Clergy are Antichristian Ministers of Satan Enemies of God and Ministers of Baal as the Popish Rabshakers pretend yet he thinks that those who can against all the brightest Evidence of sense and reason believe Transubstantiation and swallow Contradictions may also by a strong Roman-Catholick Faith believe all the abovesaid Falsities and by that belief be animated with a blind fury to murder all those whom they are taught so to miscall and esteem as is abovesaid and to believe that action to be good and just and to be warranted by the Authority of Elijah and the Example of the Jews who in obedience to his orders slew all the Priests and Worshippers of Baal to whom the Papists compare the Protestant Clergy and People And therefore that as the Authority of Elijah in quality of a Prophet Divinely inspired was both Encouragement and Warrant enough to those Jews to do what they did so the Authority of the Pope and Council being believed by the Papists to be Infallible and assisted by the Holy Ghost and being never wanting to incite them to the like bloody Execution of those they shall please to brand for Hereticks as often as a proper opportunity hpapens What can restrain them from such attempts against us For what surer or greater warrants can Men of their Principles have of the Justice of their Actings than the Synodical Decree of their Pope and Council which they believe Supream and Infallible and to which they are taught to give such an absolute Obedience that they durst not do otherwise but readily execute them without the least disputing though never so repugnant to their own sense and reason Which that our Prefacer may not seem to advance precariously he manifestly proves by the Rules and Directions given them how they are taught exactly to fulfil that grand Precept of their Church viz. To believe as she believes of which he inserts two cited out of
and Learn the Greek Tongue 3. But that which most incouraged and necessitated the study of Languages and especially the Hebrew and Greek was Luther and the Reformation by him begun Anno 1517. Luther which was rare in those times in a Monk understood Hebrew and Greek and having many disputes with Cardinal Cajetan who was then Legat in Germany the Cardinal urging Scripture against him according to their Vulgar Latin Translation Luther told him that Translation was false and dissonant from the Original This puzl'd the Cardinal though a great Schoolman who thereupon set himself to study both Greek and Hebrew which with great diligence he did that he might be better able to Answer and Confute Luther and his followers many of which were excellent Grecians such were Melanchton and many others And hence it was that the Pope and his Party seeing the necessity of Languages especially Hebrew and Greek for the Defence of their Religion or Superstition rather against the Protestants Pope Paul the fifth Renews the Decree of Clement the fifth and the Council of Vienna before mention'd and though that Decree had been neglected and the Greek Tongue damn'd in their Canon Law yet he earnestly injoins the profession of it and of the Hebrew Chaldee and Arabick in all their (a) Vide Constitutionem 67. Pauli 5. in â—â—llario Romano Editionis Rome 1638. pag. 185 186. Vniversities Monasteries and Schools to this end that they might be better able to Confute the Hereticks I am Sir Your affectionate friend and Servant Tho. Lincolne A Letter concerning the Kings being empower'd to make a Lay-man his Vicar-General Sir THAT my Lord D. of Ormonds Commission which you say you have seen has no particular mention of the Kings Ecclesiastical Power deputed I wonder not The Commission which makes him Vice-roy Deputy or Lieutenant to the King does ipso facto make him his Vicar-General to execute both powers Ecclesiastical and Civil and by that Commission he does so Does not the Lieutenant there de jure ordinario and as Lieu-tenants call Synods collate Bishopricks and other Ecclesiastical Dignities and Preferments does he not hear and determine Ecclesiastical Causes by himself or some commissioned by him does he not punish Ecclesiastical persons when they are criminal Do not your Articles of Religion established in a National (a) Articles of Religion in the National Synod or Convocation at Dublâ—n 1615. § 57 58. c. Synod of Ireland give our Kings the same Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Causes there as he has here And do not our Kings here execute their Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction partly in Person in giving Arch-Bishopricks Bishopricks calling Synods c. partly by Commission so the Chancellors of England by their Commission have power to give some Ecclesiastical Dignities and Livings to visit Winsor I mean the Collegiate Church there and all his royal Chappels and Churches of his Foundation if he have not otherwise appointed other visitors c. In short I do believe that in England never any but Cromwel had such a large Commission and full power to Visit all persons in all Ecclesiastical Causes yet I believe it most evident that he may when he shall think it convenient give such a Commission I am Sir Your affectionate Friend and Servant T. L. A Letter concerning the allowance and respect that the Sentences of Protestant Bishops may expect from Popish ones writ by way of answer to a friend of Mr. Collington's who acquainted the Bishop that the Court of Arches here was of opinion that the Sentence of the Arch-bishop of Turin could not here be question'd by reason of the practice of Popish and Protestant Bishops allowing each others Sentences Sir FOR the contempt they of Rome have of our Bishops and all their Sentences and Judicial Acts especially in foro exteriori contentioso it is notoriously known that they have no value at all of our Bishops and pronounce all their sentences and judicial Acts null and every way invalid For 1. They generally deny our Bishops and Ministers to be true Bishops or Priests but admit them to be Lay-men only A Sorbon (a) Anth Champney P. and D. of the Sorbonne Douay 1616. Dr. In a Treatise about the Vocation of Bishops and Ministers indeavours to prove against Du Plessin Dr. Field and Mr. Mason that Protestant Bishops particularly those of England are not true Bishops nor have any lawful Calling Another and he a Popish Bishop speaking of our English Bishops and Pastors says (b) R. Smith Bp. of Chalcedon in praefat ad Collationem Doctrinae Catholicorum ac Pr testant Paris 1622. Eos quos nunc pro Pastoribus habent NIHIL EORVM OBTINERE quae ad ESSENTIAM hujus muneris requiruntur Another thus (c) Rich. Bâ—istow Motivo 21. Qualis est illa Ecclesia cujus Ministri NIHIL ALIVD sunt quam MERE LAICI NON MISSI NON VOCATI NON CONSECRATI Our Countrey-man Card. Alan and the Rhemish Annotators say (d) Annotatores Rhemenses in Rom. 10.15 All our Clergy-men from the highest to the lowest are false Prophets running and usurping being NEVER LAWFULLY CALLED And Dr. Kellison speaking of our Bishops and Ministers (e) Kellison in Repl. contra D. Sutlisse p. 31. NEC ORDINES nec JVRISDICTIONEM habent And Bellarmine (f) Bellarmin De Ecclesiâ militant l. 4. c. 8. Nostri temporis Haeretici nec ordinationem nec successionem habent ideo longè inverecundiùs quam ulli unquam Haeretici nomen munus Episcopi usurpant And some Popish Priests in their Petition to King James expresly tell the King (g) Supplicat ad Jacobum Regem 1604. NVLLI ministrorum vestrorum ad Catholicam fraternitatem accedentes habentur alii quam MERE LAICI Lastly Not to trouble you or my self with more Quotations Turrian tells us that Donatists and Luciferian Hereticks have some kind of Bishops and Priests (h) Turrian de Jure Ordinand lib. 1. cap. 7. Protestantes vero NULLAM PENITVS formam Ecclesiae habent quia NULLOS PENITUS Ecclesiae Verbi MINISTROS habent sed MEROS LAICOS This is their opinion of our Bishops and Clergy that they have no just Call or Ordination and consequently no Jurisdiction and then it necessarily follows if this were true that all their Sentences and Judicial Acts are invalid and absolute nullities 2. They say that all Protestants especially the Bishops and Clergy are Hereticks and Schismaticks extra Ecclesiam and neither have nor can have any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction so that whatever cause be brought before them in their Consistories it is coram non Judice and so whatever they do is a nullity That Hereticks and Schismaticks and such they declare all Protestants to be forfeit all their Ecclesiastical Authority and Jurisdiction their own (i) Gratian. Can. 4. Audivimus Can. vit Caelestinus 35. Can. Apertè 36. Can. Miramur 37. Caus 24. Quaest 1. vid. Card. de Turre-Cremata ad dictos Canones Canons expresly say And besides
and so the Doctrine it self have the approbation of those who are publickly authoris'd by the Roman Church to examine them 3. But what is much more which you well observe this Doctrine of Burning Cities with the Hereticks in them is expresly approved and taught in the Body of their Canon Law in Gratian's Decretum to say nothing of the Decretals and before him in Juo Carnotensis and before him in Burchardus Wormatiensis It is also registred for Law by the Author of their Pannormia Pannomia he would have said had he understood any Greek I need not cite the places because they are (a) In the Corpus Juris Canonici Paris 1612. ad Can. si audieris 32. c. The places in Burchardus Juo and the Pannonia are quoted in the Margent cited in the Body of the Law it self Now it will be evident 1. That this Law of firing whole Cities to consume Hereticks has been by the Church of Rome publickly receiv'd for Law almost for 700 (b) Burchardus flourish'd Anno. 1010. Bellarmine de Script Ecclesiast in Burchardo years last past and that without any contradiction as to this Canon we are now speaking of I find indeed that Thomas Manrique Master of the Sacred Palace at Rome almost an hundred years ago (a) Censura in Glossas Jur. Canonici ex Archetypo Rom. Coloniae 157â— censured many of the â—losseâ— of the Canon Law and he might have justly censur'd many more but he does not at all censure the Gloss (b) Glossa ad dictum Canonem verbo Omnes qui. of this Canon si Audieris we are speaking of which contains the sense of the Canon in short and therefore 't is evident that he did not dislike the Canon it self nor the burning an Heretical City though some Catholicks were consum'd in it 2. But after this in the (c) Vide Gregorii 13. Bullam datam Romae Anno. 1580. Juri Canonico praesixam year 1580. Gregory 13. appointed some Cardinals aliosque Doctrinâ pietate insignes as he tells us in his Bull to review the whole Body of their Law both the Text and Gloss and purge it from all faults and errors And Bellarmine says this was effectually done (d) Bellarmin de Scriptor Ecclesiast in Gratiano ad Annum 1145. Hoc opus a mendis purgatum suae INTEGRITATI RESTITVTVM FVIT â Viris quibusdam eruditissimis authoritate Gregorii 13. And the Pope himself in the said Bull tells us That the whole work was committed to the Master of the Sacred â—alace Recognoscendum approbandum and then as it follows in the said Bull the Pope ex plenitudine potestatis Apostolicae confirms all this and commands all Catholicks to receive this incorrupt Edition of the Canon-Law by him publish'd tam in judicio quam extra judicium so as Nulli liceat quicquid addere detrahere aut immutare and if any disobey and (a) Contra inobedientes Rebelles etiam per censuras Ecclesiasticas etiam sapius aggravandas Invocato si opus fuerit auxilio brachii saecularis c. Ibidem in dicta Bullâ rebell as he calls it they are to be compell'd by Ecclesiastical Censures and if that will not do deliver'd over to the Secular Power and so to death Now as what is in our Canons of the Church of England being approv'd and and injoyn'd by the King our Supream Power and received in our Courts and common use may justly be imputed to the Church of England so the Popish Canons having been receiv'd as Law and practised and used as Law in their Courts and Consistories for almost 700 years and confirm'd by the express Constitution of the Supream and if the Canonists and Jesuites say true and Infallible Power of their Church I say on those grounds whatever Doctrine Burning Cities or any other is contain'd in those Canons may justly be imputed to that Church But that which is much more to our present purpose is That the believing and receiving the Sacred (b) Caetera omnia à SACRIS CANONIBVS aecumenicis Conciliis praecipue a Tridentinâ Synodo definita indubitanter recipio profiteor c. Hanc fidem Catholicam extra quam non est salus sponte profiteor eamque integram usque ad extremum vitae spiritum retinere c. Ego N. Spondeo Voveo Juro Vide Concil Trident. Antverp 1633. Sess 24. De Reformat in calce Cap. 12. Vbi extaâ— Bulla Pii 4. super forma professionis fidei Canons is made an Article of their new Trent-Creed and all their Ecclesiastiques Secular and Regular are to Promise Swear and Vow to profess and maintain them to their last breath 4. And when it is objected that their Canon Law was not received intirely in England or France and therefore all the extravagant Doctrines and Positions contain'd in it cannot be imputed to the Church of Rome In answer to this I say 1. That the Objection is inconsequent and a manifest non-sequitur For the errors of the Canon-Law may justly be imputed to the Church of Rome though England and France received it not because what the Pope the Supream Head of that Church and the far greater part of the Popish World do receive the Church receives Denominatio sequitur majorem partem 2. And that this is true that the Doctrines in the Canon-Law notwithstanding some may not receive them all are the Doctrines of the Church of Rome I have two Provincial Synods here in England expresly declaring it one at (a) Vide Concilia per Hen. Spelmannum Tom. 2. pag. 653. §. Nulius quoque Oxford another at (b) Apud eundem Spelman Ibidem Tom. 2. pag. 666. §. 9. London under Arch-Bishop Arundell in both which they declare That Articuli qui in Decretis aut Decretalibus continentur sunt Articuli terminati per ECCLESIAM the Church of Rome we may be sure they mean So that in the judgment of these two Provincial Councils the Canon-laws are the determinations and definitions of the Church of Rome and so whatever errors be in those Laws and Canons may justly be imputed to the Roman Church 3. The Canon-law was received Nulâ—us de Articulis termâ—nalis per Ecclesiam prout in Decretis in Decretâ—libus nisi ad habendum verum eorum intellectum dispâ—tare praesumat aut Authoritatem eorundem Decretorum aut Decretalium potestatemve condentis eadem in dubium revocet Paenas Haeresis relapsi incurrat c. here in England as is evident by the two Councils before cited and in the places cited It is certain that the Canon-laws were received both in England and France except where in some few things they clash'd with our Common or Statute Laws for then the Parliament would say Nolumus Leges Angliae mutari And so in France if they clash'd with the Liberties of the Gallican Church they would neither receive nor obey the Canons But if any can shew me
Clausala Sine praejudicio Coronae Regiae libertatum Gallican e Ecclesiae c. pag. 57 58. proposed by the Clergy and to mollifie the matter and make it pass more easily they added this Clause That the Council might be received only so far as it was not prejudicial to the Kings Royal Crown and dignity and the liberties of the Gallican Church The Clergy were zealous for it to pass and as Gramondus says Cardinal Perron spoke elegantly and learnedly for it After long debate about the reception of that Council especially between the Clergy and the third Estate the Issue was That the third Estate carried it against the Clergy and the reception and promulgation of the Trent Council was absolutely rejected (c) pag. 69. Praevaluitque Clero populus says Gramondus who yet as appears by his words in the same 69. page that it might have been received with that Clause which was added Where it is evident 1. That when (d) Notitia Conciliorum pag. 720. Cabassutius names only a (e) Anno 1615. in general conventu Gallicani Cleri Ibidem pag. 720. Convention of the Clergy in that Year 1615. as though that had been all yet it was Conventus trium regni Ordinum a Convention of the three Estates which is the greatest and Supream Convention of France equal to our Parliament as is certain and in Gramondus (f) pag. 58. c. evident 2. When Cabassutius says the Trent Council was received in that general Convention of the Gallican Clergy De Marca Archbishop of Paris a person of far more Learning and Authority than that pitiful Monk says and evidently proves that no such Convention of the Gallican Clergy had any Authority to receive or Promulgate the Trent Council or any other Council they might approve and as they did desire the reception of that Council but receive it they could not 3. Lastly it was so far from being received as Cabassutius dreams by the Convention of the French Clergy that it was absolutely rejected by the supream Convention of the three Estates and that after a long and free debate It is true and from the best Historians notoriously known that not only in France but in England while Popery prevail'd here the Clergy were generally more for advancing the Popes than maintaining the just Prerogatives of their own Kings or the Rights of the Laity Because as by the Clergies help and assistance the Pope grew greater so their Jurisdiction and Revenues were increas'd by the Pope So Anselm and Beckett were zealous for the Pope and very Disobedient if not Traiterous to their King therefore the Pope assists them with his Power and Favours while they live and Canonizes and makes them what their virtues could not Saints after their Death That God Almighty would be graciously pleased to bless your Lordship your Noble Family and your Friends is the Prayer of My Lord Your Lordships most obliged thankful and faithful Servant Thomas Lincolne September 1677. Received from the Bishop in a Letter an account of the Numbers of the Conformists Nonconformists Papists of the Age of Communicants with the Proportions of their Numbers to one another in the several Diocesses in the Province of Canterbury which Survey of their Numbers was taken by the Bishops in the Year 1676. by direction from His Majesty King Charles the Second together with the nine Paragraphs of Remarks made by some imploy'd in the Survey IN the taking of this Survey or account we find these things remarkable 1. That many left the Church on the late indulgence who before did frequent it 2. The sending forth these enquiries hath caus'd many to frequent the Church 3. That they are Walloons chiefly who make up the Number of Dissenters in Canterbury Sandwich and Dover 4. That the Presbyterians are divided some of them come sometimes to Church Therefore such are not wholly Dissenters upon the third Enquiry 5. A Considerable part of Dissenters are not of any Sect whatsoever 6. Of those who come to Church very many do not receive the Sacrament 7. At Ashford and at other places we find a new sort of Hereticks after the Name of Muggleton a London Taylor in number Thirty 8. The rest of the Dissenters are Presbyterians Anabaptists Independants Quakers about equal Numbers only some few Self-willers professedly 9. The Heads and Preachers of the several Factions are such as had a great share in the late Rebellion The Number of  Conformists Non-conf Papists Canterbury 59596 6287 142 London 263385 20893 2069 Winchester 15â—937 7904 968 Rochester 27886 1752 64 Norwich 168760 7934 671 Lincolne 215077 10001 1244 Ely 30917 1416 14 Chichester 49164 2452 385 Salisbury 103671 4075 548 Exceter 207570 5406 298 Bath and Wells 145464 5856 176 Worcester 37489 1325 719 Coven and Litch 155720 5042 1949 Hereford 65942 1076 714 Glocester 64734 2363 128 Bristol 66200 2200 199 Peterborough 91444 2081 163 Oxford 38812 1122 358 St. Davids 68242 2368 217 Landaffe 39248 719 551 Bangor 28016 247 19 St. Asaph 45088 635 275  Total 2123362 93154 11870  93154    11870    2228386   The proportion of the Numbers of  Nonc to Conf. as 1. to Papists to Conf. as 1. to Both to Conf. as 1. to Pap. to Non-conf as 1. to Canter 9. R. 3013 419 R. 98 9 r. 1735 44 r. 39 London 12. R. 12669 127 R. 622 11 r. 10803 10 r. 201 Winch. 19. R. 761 155 R. 823 17 r. 113 8 r. 160 Roch. 415. R. 1606 445 R. 46 15 r. 646 27 r. 24 Norw 21. R. 2146 251 R. 339 19 r. 465 11 r. 553 Lincol. 21. R. 5056 172 R. 1109 19 r. 1422 8 r. 49 Ely 21. R. 1181 2208 R. 5 21 r. 887 20 r. 2 Chich. 20. R. 124 129 R. 399 17 r. 935 6 r. 142 Salisb. 25. R. 1796 189 R. 89 22 r. 1964 7 r. 239 Exceter 38. R. 2142 696 R. 162 36 r. 2326 18 r. 42 Bath Wells 24. R. 4920 826 R. 88 24 r. 696 33 r. 48 Worces 28. R. 389 52 R. 101 18 r. 697 1 r. 606 Covent Lich. 30. R. 4460 79 R. 1749 22 r. 1918 2 r. 1144 Heref. 61. R. 606 92 R. 254 36 r. 2602 1 r. 362 Glocest 26. R. 296 505 R. 84 25 r. 2449 18 r. 59 Bristol 30. R. 200 332 R. 132 27 r. 1487 11 r. 11 Peterb 43. R. 1961 591 R. 111 40 r. 1684 12 r. 125 Oxford 34. R. 664 108 R. 148 26 r. 1332 3 r. 48 St. Dav. 28. R. 1938 314 R. 104 26 r. 1032 10 r. 198 Land 54. R. 422 71 R. 147 30 r. 1148 1 r. 168 Bangor 113. R. 95 1474 R. 10 105 r. 86 13 St. Asa 71. R. 3 163 R. 263 49 r. 498 2 r. 85  T. 22. R 73974 178 R. 10502 19 r. 1906 7 r. 10064 It is here thought fit to acquaint the Reader that the Bishop having sent this Copy of the Survey to Sir P.P. he making
he may make Laws to oblige them to do such and such particular things as Christ hath Commanded them Thirdly As he may punish them for not doing so Thus much of the potestas ordinis in Ecclesiastical Persons But Secondly there may be considered in them the Power of Jurisdiction and that 1. In foro interno and this Power they have from Christ and not from Magistrates 2. In foro externo and Coactive and this Jurisdiction is wholly borrowed from the Civil Power and is directly subject to it Sacro fungi Ministerio nisi legitimè vocatus nullus jure potest IN the explaining the terms of the Question in order to the stating of it we shall First Take notice that the mentioning of the word Ministerium makes it obvious to us to distinguish it by Civile and Sacrum The Civil Ministry is generally taken for a publick Office or Trust committed to any by a Prince or State And so you may find it in the Imperial Laws l. 1. ff ad L. Jul. Repetund And this name of Ministers was given to the most Honourable Officers in the Roman Common-wealth But the Ministerium Sacrum is Munus alicui a Deo demandatum quo ipsi immediatius famulamur and which doth not look so much at the Political and External good of a State as Mens Ecclesiastical and inward concerns and at the Glory of God and at the Eternal Salvation of the Souls of Men. But Secondly This Ministry is not said to be Sacred in respect of its Principium a quo namely God Because although absolute loquendo the Ecclesiastical Ministry may be call'd Sacred respectu principii a quo namely God yet Comparative loquendo it is not more Sacred in order to God as the Principium a quo than the Civil Ministry for both of them do meet in this that they are a Deo And so they are both Sacred on this account For Kings in respect of their Authority delivered from God are Sacred Persons and were so called in all Ages and by all People So Sacra Majestas Caesarea Sacra Majestas Regia are the most known Epitheti of Supream Power But the Ecclesiastical Ministry is said to be Sacred in respect of its object and the matter in which it Converseth of the Management of Holy things Committed to a Man by God whereas the Civil Ministry handles not things Sacred but Civil This Sacred Ministry we affirm to have been committed by God to some certain Persons And that First Immediately in the time of the Gospel as when Christ chose the Apostles and 70. Disciples and employ'd them in the Ministry of the Gospel Secondly Mediately Thus the Apostles and their Successours did commit this Ministry to others by them chosen and ordain'd For this see S. Mathew 28.18 19 20. Jesus came and spake to them saying All power is given to me in Heaven and Earth go ye therefore and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost c. There he committs to them the Authority given him by his Father And this is more clear out of St. John c. 20. 21. As my Father hath sent me so send I you Christ was sent by his Father they by Christ and others by them you may further consult Acts 20.28 Take heed therefore to your selves and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers c. The Spirit of God did make them Bishops but not immediately for we know they were Constituted mediately by Man The Question therefore is whether any may perform the acts of this Ministry who are not Lawfully call'd to it We deny it and do distinguish of a double calling First Extraordinary when God doth call some Men immediately and having endow'd them with gifts sends them into the Vineyard So we know the Prophets and Apostles were call'd to the work of the Ministry and we believe that others by them were in ipsis nascentis Ecclesiae primordiis so call'd Secondly I do not doubt but that God by his infinite power may sometime call Men thus to it even at this Day But that he hath actually call'd any Men so extraordinarily and immediately the Church having been settled for so many years I deny Nor shall I believe it unless by manifest criterions they make it appear to us to be so But suppose it that Sempronius comes to me and Preacheth to me many new unheard of things and tells me that he was sent from God to declare them to me I say in this Case no Man is bound to believe Sempronius unless by some cogent demonstration he proves himself to have been thus sent by God But Secondly This calling is ordinary to wit that which is not immediately from God but mediately by the intervention of mens will and authority deriv'd from God and this calling is twofold First Internal which consists in this that he who desires to be chosen or admitted into this Holy and Religious Negotiation should seriously and sincerely examine himself and his Talents and look into the most inward recesses of his mind and at last determine himself to have this inward aptitude all things consider'd for the work of the Ministry so that he may Spontaneously offer himself up to God for no Man ought to be admitted into Holy Orders against his will Secondly This calling is external made by those who preside over the Church which consists in this First That the Overseers of the Church should approve the Mans gifts and qualifications for the work publickly Secondly After they have according to the Apostolical Canons and Rules delivered in the Scripture known and approved such a Man to be fit for the Ministry that they then impose hands on him in a Solemn manner initiate him in Holy Orders and Communicate to him the Spiritual Authority first given them by Christ For we say that without such a calling as this no Man can be a Lawful Minister And as for the necessity of this calling none of the Ancient Hereticks of the Primitive Church ever deny'd it and the Anabaptists born in High Germany were the first who deny'd it as is clear out of Sleidans Commentarys And for this you may see the Gangraena Theologiae Anabaptisticae per Johan Clâ—ppenburgium This opinion of theirs was afterward own'd by Socinus as appears out of his Epistola tertia ad Math. Raderium where he saith p. 126. Jam vero verbi Dei Administratio quae ad Ecclesiam Colligendam Constituendamque requiritur nulli certae Familiae nulli eligendi rationi aut Successioni alligata eâ—t And he giveth his judgment in the like manner concerning the Lords Supper that it is not necessary to be given by a Minister But many Arguments might be brought from the Scripture to support the contrary truth I shall here refer to the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews c. 5. v. 4. And no Man taketh this honour to him but he that is called