nothing in this for their purpose 2. They make much use of Aristotle's Philosophy 3. Decretal Constitutions of Popes and all the received Doctrines and Rites of Rome were Authentick with them and whatever seem'd contradictory was denied or construed to a complying sense 2. Scholastica Media ab Alberto Magno 1220. ad Duranduâ— 1330. In hoc Intervallo Aristoteles aut Scholasticâ superiori ad Theologiae limen in ipsa Adâ—â— a Sacrarii Theologiae Introductus scripta ejus demonstratione niti censentur qua autem Verbum Dei docet credulitate opiâ—â—â—râ— probabili teâ—â—â— quod etiam expressè publice patentur Gal. Ockamus â—n Câ—ntiloâ—â—â—â—â—iâ—sculè asserunt eorum Docâ—â—â—â—â— Hac 〈◊〉 â—uaeâ—tioneâ— (b) Vid. Lamâ—ertâ—m Danaeum Loco citato ubi earum aliquas plurimae enim sunt brevi Catalogo Lectori exhibet Curiosas â—â—pâ—as Blasphemâ—â—â—â—mere pâ—oâ—â—nunt Scholaâ—â—icâ— Impie di cutiâ—nt ex principiis Philosoâ—â—â—â— Peripateticae potias quam Scripturae statuunt definiunt que 3. Scholastica tertia ultima pessima ab Anno 1330. ad 1517. Haec aetas says my Author longè Impudentissima nam quae modestia in veteri media Scholastica adhuc manserat ne temere de quibusdam ritibus Quaestionibus adhuc dubiis affirmaretur istâ aetate periit Vtrum Papa sit simplex (c) Hence that blasphemous piece of Popish Poetry Papa stupor Mundi qui maxima Rerum nec Deus es nec Homo quasi neuter es inter utrumque Vid. Glossam verbo Papa in Praemio Clemuntinarum Homo an quasi Deus an participet utramque Naturam cum Christo An potestas ejus sit supra Concilium An Mariae conceptio erat Immaculata An Calix fit Laicis negundus Haec similia sub deliberatione quadam posita quaesivit Scholastica prior sed haec ultima temerè decrevit 1. But if any desire a fuller Account of the School-men and their Theologia Scholastica and the approbation Rome gave it he may consult 1. Hospinian Hist Sacramentariae Tom. 1. l. 4. cap. 9. p. 401. 2. Lamb. Danaeus in Prolegom ad Lib. Sent. Lombardi 1. cap. 1 2. fusi 9. 3. Sixtus Senensis Biblioth Sanctae Lib 3. p. 216. Edit Colon. Agr. 1626. 4. Possevinus Bibliothecae Selectae Lib. 3. cap. 12 c. The two first give a true account of the Iniquity and Ignorance of those Times of the Corruption of Divinity Introduction of Errours and Superstitions and the Schoolmens industrious endeavours to vindicate what the Pope and his Adherents had as impiously introduced The two last mince the matter conceal the truth and tell a confused Tale of the Original of School-Divinity and at last highly commend it and its Authors even for their Learning which all know they were never guilty of (a) Sixtus Senensis Bibl. Sanctae lib. 3. p. 217. and excuses their bad Latine with a piece of Scripture transferring that of St. Paul to Peter Lombard and his Followers (b) 2 Cor. 11. v. 6. tho' I am made rude in speech yet not in knowledge But others and more sober Papists are of another Opinion and candidly confess that truth which Protestants affirm and know I shall name one or two more and 1. Johan Tritthemius Abbas Spanhemiensis speaking of the Time of the Emperour Conradus tertius and the Year 1140. tells us (c) Tritthemius de Script Ecclesiasticis in Pet. Dialectico seu Abilardo p. 161. Edit Colon. 1546. ab hoc Tempore Philosophia saecularis Sacram Theologiam suâ curiositate inutili foedare caepit c. Tritthemius finish'd that Work long before Luther Anno 1494 * Johan Aventinus no Papist I confess yet commended by Learned and sober Papists and Conradus Aldermannus Canonici Augustiani 2. Quod Legem Historiae (d) Johan Andr. Quenstedt Dialogo de Patrum Illustrium Doctrinà Script Virorum Veritatem scilicet religiosè in scribendo observavit I say Aventine speaking of Lombard who was made Bishop of Paris 1159. saith thus Eâ Tempestate Petrus Longobardus Lutetiae Parisiorum Creatur Pontifex Is quidem Theologumen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 Lib. scripsit sed Sacrosanct (e) Joh. Avent Anal. Boiorum lib. 6. p. 392. Edit Basil 1615. Edit Basil 1580. p. 508. Philosophiae Veritatem Fontemque purissimum sicuti plus millies a Jac. Fabro Jodoco Chichtoveo Praeceptoribus meis and they not Lutherans or Calvinists we are sure accepi atque audivi Coeno Quaestionum rivulis Opinionum conturbavit id quod usus Rerum magis nisi caeci simus satis superque docet Verba haec lineis inclusa ex fussu Inquisitorum ex Indic Expurgat Hispan Madriti 1667. Lusitanico Olysipone 1624. sunt delenda vid. dictos Indices in Joh. Aventino Floruit Aventinus circa 1500. One thing more may be observ'd of the School-men and of Popish Casuists and Commentators especially those before Luther that when they speak of Moral Duties and those things which lie within the compass of Natural Reason to know and judge of we shall find many things well and some things acutely said but when they speak of those things the knowledge of which depends on Scripture and Revelation as of Faith Repentance Sacraments Justification their ignorance of Tongues Antiquity and consequently of the meaning of Scripture besides they 're inslaved to maintain all the Errours and Superstitions of Rome which at that time were very many In their discourses of Subjects it is no wonder if their mistakes ex inscitiâ aut partium studio be many and great 21. It will be necessary for a Divine to have some Casuists c. Amongst the Popish Authors there are very many so that all persons of their Faction may find most Cases at least in general stated and determin'd according to the Principles and Interest of their Church and their prudence in this is great were their Cause good For Protestants there is no part of Divinity which has been I know not why more neglected very few have writ a just comprehensive Tract of Cases of Conscience However 't will be convenient to consult such as we have Protestants and Papists 1. For helps to understand Cases of Conscience we may amongst others which are Protestants consult such as 1. Bishop Sanderson's two Tracts or Praelections de Obligatione Conscientiae de Juramento are of great excellence and use for in them he has so plainly explain'd and prov'd many Propositions concerning Oaths and Conscience in Thesi and in general that he who understands and remembers them and can in Hypothesi hic nunc rightly apply them may determine many other Cases not mentioned by him 2. There are five Cases of Conscience determined by a late Learned Hand c. London 1666. Octavo No name to them but Parentem referunt they look so like that good Bishop that any would suspect they are his and worthy any persons perusal 3. Amesius de
necessarily presupposes and to believe that there is a God because God said so whose existence is in the mean time call'd in question were ridiculous Answ I. Tho' the Existence of God be an Article of Faith yet it may likewise be known by Natural light since there are many things in the Scriptures which we believe by Faith that can be demonstrated by natural light such as these known Principles that God is to be honoured Parents obeyed c. And the Reason is because Faith and Natural Scientifick Knowledge do not formally differ in their material Object for both may have one and the same Object viz. one and the same proposition both proved by natural demonstration and believed in by Faith because of the testimony of God but the main and principle difference lies in that which they call Objectum formale and the formality of the Object is taken from the principal Motive or mean by vertue whereof the proposition comes to gain an assent as in Natural things the motive of my assent is evident demonstration and in supernatural things the testimony of God so that I may assent unto a proposition that is demonstrable by natural light because of the clear probation of the same and this is call'd assensus scientificus and if God confirm it by Revelation I assent unto the same proposition because of the testimony of God and this is called assensus fidei or supernaturalis not as if the proposition it self were supernatural incomprehensible by natural light but because the medium or motive upon which I ground my assent unto it is supernatural So that one and the same proposition may be in ordine ad diversa motiva both the object of Faith and of a demonstrative Natural knowledge Instatur The Object of Faith is inevident for Faith is an inevident assent But if the Existence of God can be demonstratively proved by Natural Light then it cannot be inevident Ergo c. Answ There be three things to be considered in giving an assent to a truth 1. Firmitas or the stedfastness of the person in his belief not doubting of any thing 2. Certitudo or the certainty of the truth it self for some Men may be firmly perswaded of a thing which is not in it self a certain truth as the Hereticks are of their Errours 3. Evidentia or a demonstrative perspicuous manifestation of the truth For many things such as matters of Faith are certainly true and Men are firmly persuaded of their truth who yet cannot evidently shew and demonstrate that it is a truth because they believe upon the Testimony of another And of these truths that are evident some are more evident than others as the prima principia or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are more evident than the other conclusions that are deduced tho' with evidence too by a longer series of consequences Now whatever is an Object of Faith is indeed ineâ—â—â—ent yet there are some things more inevident than others such as the principal and cardinal truths of thâ— Christian Relâ—gion viz. The Trinity of Persons in the Godhead the divinity and incâ—â—â—nation of Christ and the whole Mystery of his Redeâ—ption of the World by his blooâ— and these are evâ—ry way inevident whereas there are some other truths which tho' in so far as they are believed in by Faith are justly denominated inevident because of the motive and medium of the Belief yet may be upon another occasional respect and per accidens called evident of which Nature is this of the Existence of a God which is truly an object of Faith and in that respect inevident viz. as assented unto upon the testimony of God But it is also upon another respect evident becâ—use it per accidens so falls out that it is likewise demonstrable by natural knowledge Answ 2. It does not follâ—w that the Existence of God cannot be believed by Faith because Faith depends on the Testimony of God which presupposes that there is a God for the contrary seems rather to be deducible from thence viz. That because all Faith is founded upon the Divine Testimony and because no Believer can give assent unto any truth unless he know the Testimony given unto the same to be divine therefore by that same very act of Faith whereby he believes this Testimony to come from God he likewise believes there is a God who sends it For by the same individual act of seeing I must of necessity see the colour and sensible species of a Wall as they call it that I see the Wall it self by No more can I know the testimony to the truth to be divine unless by the same very act of Faith whereby I believe the testimony to be God's I likewise believe the existence of God who gives this Testimony And this Divine Testimony is the ground of all my belief and the ratio a priori wherefore I give mine assent unto any thing yet there can be no ratio a priori given wherefore I believe the Testimony of God as when I see a Wall the ratio is because of the species but the species it self wants any ratio and is only â—â—en propter se so in all the objects of my â—aith I believe them because of the Testimony of God but I believe the Testimony of God propter se So that the Existence of God though it be sufficiently demonstrable by the light of Nature and in that sense the Object of a scientifick asâ—â—â— yet since God has confirmed it by his revealed Testimony it may well be stated as an Article of our Creed which we believe because God has testified and revealed the same and that in a more clear manner than bare Reason is capable to perform the demonstration of it Objection 4. There is no other way of knowing God naturally than by way of causality from the Creatures arising from the effect unto the cause but that we cannot do unless we can evidently know and demonstrate that the Creature is really the effect and work of God and this we cannot since the greatest Philosophers were ignorant of it and thâ—ught the World to be eternal which is also confirmed by the Apostle Heb. 11. By faith we know that the World was created intimating that the Creation of the World is a truth not comprehended by Natural Light Answer All the Philosophers have generally acknowledged that God was the Creator of the World Hence Aristotle frequently calls God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Plato in Timaeo Tom. 2. pag. 31. asserts that God made but one World not many Plutarch commends Alexander for saying that God was the Father of all things Plutarch in Alex. Magn. pag 681. What more ordinary amongst the Poets than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I lle opisex rerum c Anaxagoras Hermotinus Pythagoras c. were all asserters of the same Doctrine so that they knew and acknowledged the Creation of the World in general though they could not condescend to the particular Circumstances
which attended the same And therefore is it that Galen scoffs and stouts at Moses for saying many things about the manner of the Creation of the World and proving nothing And as to that saying of the Apostle we have sufficiently shewn already that one and the same material truth may both be believed by faith and assented unto by Natural Reason and so may be invested with different Denominations arising from the different motiva upon which they are received So that the Existence of God is an object of Natural Knowledge as it is demonstrated by reason and is likewise an object of Faith as being witnessed by a Testimony clearer than Reason even the Supernatural Testimony of God Upon which account it is said to be Supernatural not as if the Proposition it self did so far surpass the power of Nature that it could not be compass'd and apprehended by the same but because the mean or motive by which it gains an assent is Supernatural and the knowledge acquired by the same is more distinct and particularly circumstantiate than what the more general and confused Natural Reason can possibly furnish us withal Objection 5. If the Existence of a God and the Knowledge thereof were so naturally imprinted on the Spirits of all Men then it could not be wholly obliterated nay nor in the least diminished either by long inveterate custom or any other violent force for whatever is Natural as descent is unto a Stone let it be never so oft or so customarily cast up and put out of its road yet it still returns unto the same and can never forget its Natural Byas whereas we see the Knowledge of a God in many Mens Breasts if not quite abolished yet very much defaced what by evil Company-keeping and what by a long contracted habit and custom of sinning But if the Knowledge of God were Natural no such thing could fall out Ergo c. Answer It is true indeed that Custom cannot change Nature that is the natural inclination and propension of any thing such as the descent of a stone is But it may change and alter the Natural Acts or the particular Exertions of the propensive Faculties as though custom cannot bereave a stone of its natural inclination and propensity to bend downwards yet it may hinder the execution of what it is naturally inclined unto since a customary and oft casting it up hinders it to come down And in this sense the Knowledge of God by the Light of Nature which is an act of the Natural Understanding Faculty whereby it evidently sees and is ascertain'd that there is a God is oft times hindered likewise But the hinderances that may occur unto these Acts executive of and flowing from the Natural Inclination are twofold 1. External and by these the Natural Acts are many times impeded As that Physical Act of the Natural Descent of a Stone is oft times hindered by a Supervenient physical Impediment and the Moral Intellectual Act of knowing the Existence of God is oft times hindered by a Moral Impediment viz. sin which will some times so over-cloud and blind the Understanding that it cannot see or discern the clearest truth even of the Existence of that God who is truth it self 2. Internal or when the Propensive Faculty and Inclination does of its own accord pursue the contrary of what it inclin'd unto before And in this sense the Natural or Physical Inclinations cannot be controul'd in following their Natural Pondus because they being naturally determin'd ad Vnum can never be obliged from any Intrinsick Principle to run in the contrary Channel But as for Moral Faculties which are only sway'd by Moral not Physical Agents they are not endow'd with any such freedom from Internal Alteratives of which we have too too palpable a Testimony in our sad experience for though Adam in the state of Innocence was naturally bended towards Honestum Verum yet as soon as sin got hold of him he was not only hurried away by the violence of the external stream but did willingly and by an internal consent go along with the Current And these Executive Acts may indeed for the Reasons and in the Cases above assign'd be changed by Custom for Custom cannot alter Natural Propensions or Inclinations especially where they are purely Natural that is without any cognition as the descent of a stone though the stone be hindered by external violence from the act of descending yet still it remains as the Natural Pondus of it But as for those Inclinations and Propensive Faculties which are not so purely natural as being endow'd with Knowledge and yet they are called Natural too because it is as natural for the Will of Man to incline unto that which is good as for a stone to incline to its center in these I say this Axiome does not hold so extensively true as in the Physical and more Natural Inclinations For we see that the casting up a stone tho' never so frequently does not oblige it to forsake its Natural Propensity to come downwards But in the Moral and Ethical Inclinations of Men we find a Habit and Custom of sinning hath so far prevail'd upon us that we do not steer that course which naturally we were addicted unto The Reason of the disparity of Physical and Moral Inclinations is because the former are semper ad unum determinatae and so can never be alter'd in their Inclination but the latter viz. Moral Inclinations are more easily overcome because they are indulg'd a greater Liberty and are not by any necessitas naturae like the other bound up to any particular Object Indeed their general Object is as invariable as that of a Natural Necessity for the Will cannot by any Custom whatsoever incline unto that which is not in general Good nor can the Intellect be perswaded to assent unto that which is not in general true But in the more particular circumstances of their Object they are oft times prevail'd upon by Custom as the Will may by a long and inveterate Habit follow after that which is indebitum bonum and the Intellect by prejudice or the imperium of the Will c. may be obliged to give its assent unto that which is not in it self true But in the general the Will must still follow what is apparently good and the Intellect assent unto what is seemingly true for voluntas non potest appetere malum quà malum nor Intellectus assentire falso quà falso And if it should here be question'd Why the Understanding should be so oft deceived in these practical primary Principles That there is a God and that he is to be Worshipped whereas it is never deceived in in its Speculative Principles for no Man ever doubted that Totum est majus suâ parte and Impossibile est idem esse non esse how comes it therefore that they should be so readily and frequently imposed upon by false practical Principles I say if any such thing
is of a Person which likewise is twofold 1. Of Christ as Man For so he was in the Number of the Elect. Math. 12.18 2. Of those United with Christ namely of the Angels who persevered in their Obedience and of Men God ordain'd and Elected some Men to Offices and Honour in this World as Saul to the Government Others he Elected to Salvation and Glory in Heaven and of these our Question is Now here we say that this Divine Election by which God chooseth Certain Men from Eternity to Salvation is not an Act of the Divine Intellect or Knowledge by which he knows but of his Will by which according to his good pleasure he determines of us The Reason is because the Divine Knowledge is Natural and necessary so that it is impossible that God should not know every object that could be known but Election is a free Act since it is a thing confessed pâ—tuisse Deum vel nullos Condidisse vel Conditos non elegisse vel plures vel pauciores vel alios pâ—oâ—suo benâ—placito jure absoluto quo in Creaturas utitur The Divine Knowledge doth equally look at all objects possible or future but not so his Election which is a Discretive Act and passeth by some to perish for ever while it prepares Grace and Glory for others Now when it is ask'd if Election be from Faith foreseen First We do not deny that Faith was foreseen from Eternity since 't is manifest that the Knowledge of God is equally Eternal with his Will For sicut quicquid est futurum erat ab aeterno futurum ita etiam ab aeâ—erno Cognitum But Secondly We enquire of the habitude that the fâ—reseeing of Faith hath to Election This habitude for foreseen Faith in order to Election is threefold and may have the Notion First Antecedentis so that God chooseth none to Heaven in whom he had not seen Faith to come or did see that Faith would come before they were actually Elected Secondly It may have the Notion Conditionis and so Faith may be consider'd as a Condition necessarily required in Election Thirdly Foreseen Faith may further have the Notion of a Cause and so not to be only an Antecedent and a Condition of Election but to have the Notion of a Cause from whence Election follows as the Effect Now when 't is enquired if Election be of Faith foreseen Historical Faith is not meant nor a Faith of Miracles the which Unregenerate Men may have but the meaning is of justifying Faith which is proper only to the Regenerate These matters being thus setled Our Principal Conclusion is this viz. In illis qui Eliguntur Praedestinantur ad gloriam non datur aliquis Actus aut qualitas a Deo praevisa aut aliud quodcunque quod sit meritum causa ratio aut Conditio vel antecedens quolibet modo ita Praesuppositum Decreto Electionis ut ex positione talis Praecedanei in Praevisione divinâ ponatur Electio ex negatione negetur Or you may take the Conclusion thus viz. Nulla datur ex parte nostrâ Causa ratio vel Conditio sine quâ non Praedestinatioâ—is seu Electionis Divinae The first Reason of this Conclusion is If Election be from Faith foreseen then Faith foreseen is some way a Cause of Election the which Consequence though the Remonstrants will sometimes deny and seem not to allow foreseen Faith as the Cause of Gods Electing as may be seen in the Collatio Hagiensis p. 103. Yet elsewhere they speak it out plainly in Writings held by them most Authentical namely in Actis Synodalibus Part. 2. p. 6. where they tell us Fidem Perseverationem in Electione Consâ—derari ut Conditionem ab bomine praestitam ac proinde tanquam Causam They add this Reason Because the Condition prescribed and perform'd doth necessario alicujus Causae rationem induere And indeed they must needs be forc'd to Confess this For if we ask them why God chose Peter and not Judas they say because God foresaw that Peter would believe So that from their Hypothesis it must needs be that foreseen Faith was the Cause that Peter was chosen before Judas Now I do subsume that foreseen Faith is not the Cause nor Reason nor Motive any way of Election First Because the Scripture allows of no Cause of Election extra Deum ipsum but refers it altogether to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beneplacitum For this Consult Ephes 1.11 and Rom. 9.11 On the other hand If you will believe you shall be Elected is no where to be found in Holy Writ either expresly or by equi valence There is I confess this proposition in Scripture He that believes shall be saved but not he that believes shall be predestinated because God never required Faith as antecedaneous to his decree Secondly If Faith be an effect and Consequent of Election then is it not the Cause of it or antecedaneous motive because 't is altogether impossible and implies a manifest Contradiction ut idem respectu ejusdem sit antecedens consequens causa effectus But Faith is an effect or Consequent of Election therefore 't is not a Cause or antecedent motive of it The minor I prove out of Eph. 1.4 According as he hath chosen us before the Foundation of the World that we should be Holy c. And v. 5th sheweth that God did predestinate those whom he would adopt for Sons not such as were Sons But if he had chosen such as believed then he would have chosen Holy Men and Sons But Sanctity and our Sonship are not the Cause nor Antecedent Motive of Election For Rom. 8.29 For whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate to be Conformed to the Image of his Son not as if they were then so Again if Election were of Works then the Apostle might have had an Answer to his Objection in a readiness as to what he mentions in the 9th of the Romans about the Children neither having done any good or evil and in vain had the instance there been brought of the Potters power over the Clay of the same lump to make one Vessel unto Honour and another to dishonour Whereas if Election had been from foreseen Faith he had spoke more aptly thus Hath not the Potter the art to know the difference in several parts of Clay and to separate the good from the bad But the Apostles similitude is exactly pertinent if we suppose Election to be absolute and all Creatures to be in an equal State The Bishop ends his determination with another Reason for his Conclusion Namely that Infants are Eleoted but not from Faith and perseverance for they are not capable thereof Partes sub antiquo saedere per Christi Mortem salutem sunt Consecuti TO begin with the sâ—â—tinâ— of the Question 1. By Fathers here we do not understand the Patriarchs and Prophets but all the Faithful under the Old Testament All the Children of Abraham I mean not of
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
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
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
Art Octavo Creed wherein we say and should believe that there is but one Eternal And if we had no Scripture yet Nature and the undoubted principles of our natural Reason tell us and efficaciously demonstrate that there can be but one Eternal For whatever is eternal of it self and without all beginning must of necessity be infinite for nothing can give finitude or bounds to it self and whatever is eternal cannot possibly have any thing before it to give it bounds and 't is more impossible that what is after it and temporal should give bounds to an Eternal Being so that if those Atoms be Eternal and Infinite as they must be if they be Eternal then they must be so many Deities or Gods for nothing but God can be Eternal and Infinite and then consider how many Gods we shall have even as many as there are of those Atomes Now he tells us p. 124. that perhaps a * In minimo corpusculo continentur multae Atomorum Myriades vid. Philosophiam Epicuri per Gassendum cap. 6. p. 39. Edit Londini Anno. 1660. Million of those Atomes do not make one corpusculum or visible body and then how many Millions must go to make up all the Corpuscula and corpora in the World will be a hard work for him or any body else to number He then who saith those Atomes are Eternal brings in a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a multiplicity of Gods and so denies the onely true God for more than one true God there cannot be 2. He says those Atomes have magnitude and motion pag. 17 18. which no Eternal and infinite thing is capable of as (b) Aristotle Metaphysicorum lib. 14. cap. 6. Natural Auscult lib. 8. cap. 15. Aristotle from natural principles has evidently proved But if he say and nothing else can be said that these Atomes are Temporary and had a beginning I ask when and by whom did they begin 1. It is said by him p. 17. that they were the FIRST MATTER of the World Ergo they must be before the World as the matter of an House must be before a House can be made of it but if Moses say true Gen. 1.1 In the beginning God Created the Heaven and the Earth c no mention of Atomes Heaven and Earth were created says Moses and all Jews and Christians say that was ex nihilo non ex Atomis aut materià ullâ praexistenti Sed apage nugas quae Christianum Philosophum non sapiunt sed Atheum aut Epicurum qui creationem ne virtute quidam divinâ (c) Vid. notam Gassendi ad calcem cap. 5. Syntagmatis Philosophiae Epicuri pag. 37. supra citat possibilem esse negabat sunt Apinae tricaeque si quid vilius istis quas referre pudet piget refellere I am troubled nor can I without some sorrow and impatience speak or think of it to see the Scepticism to say no worse which now securely reigns in our miserable Nation while some dare profess and publish irrational and wild Notions in Philosophy and Divinity too to the great prejudice of our Church and Truth and gratification of our adversaries especially those of the Roman faction whose work we foolishly do for them quod Ithacus Velit and without hope of reward or thanks ruine our selves gratis whilst others by Authority and Duty oblig'd to suppress such opinions and punish their Authors betray their trust and truth and either knowingly License which I am loath to think or negligently permit such Apocryphal and Erroneous positions to be publish'd in veritatis damnum Ecclesiae Anglicanae scandalum God Almighty be merciful to this bleeding Church and Nation and to every true Member of either of them to your self and Sir Your faithful Servant T. B Another Letter to Sir J. B. Sir I received yours and return a thousand thanks I am glad that neither you nor that excellent person to whom you did innocently and prudently communicate what sub sigillo I communicated to you do condemn my censure of the Book I mention'd I confess I am and a long time have been not a little troubled to see Protestants nay Clergy-men and Bishops approve and propagate that which they miscall New-Philosophy so that our Universities begin to be infected with it little considering the Cause or Consequences of it or how it tends evidently to the advantage of Rome and the ruine of our Religion 1. It is certain this New-Philosophy as they call it was set on foot and has been carried on by the Arts of Rome and those (a) Vid. Juramentum Professionis fidei which all her Ecclesiasticks take in Concilio Trident Sess 24. De Reformatione in calce cap. 12. whose Oath and Interest it is to maintain all her superstitions Campanella de Monarchia Hispaniae I have lent out my Book and cannot cite you the page gives this advice to the King of Spain to give large stipends to some persons of great parts and wit who may in Flanders propagate some new opinions in Philosophy tells him that the Hereticks such as you and I he means are greedy of novelty and will be apt to receive such New opinions in Philosophy whence divisions and new opinions in Divinity will arise By which divisions so set on foot and well managed the Hereticks may with much more ease be rooted out and ruin'd Since which time Papists especially the Jesuites have promoted this New-Philosophy and their new design to ruine us by it for the great Writers and Promoters of it are of the Roman Religion such as Des Cartes Gassendus Du Hamel Maurus Mersennus De Mellos c. and what divisions this new Philosophy has caused amongst Protestants in Holland and England cannot be unknown to any considering person When I was though unworthy Library-Keeper and seeing the Jesuites and Popish party cry up their New-Philosophy I did by friends send to Paris Venice Florence Rome Alcala de Henares Academia Complutensis in Spain c. to inquire whether the Jesuites in their Colledges train'd up their young men in the New-Philosophy or whether in all their Disputations they kept them to strict form and Aristotle's way of ratiocination and the return I had from all places was That none were more strict than they in keeping all their young men to the old principles and forms of Disputation For they well know that all their School-men Casuists and Controversy-Writers have so mix'd Aristotle's Philosophy with their Divinity that he who has not a comprehension of Aristotles Principles and the use of them in all Scholastick Disputes and Controversies of Religion will never be able rationally to defend or confute any controverted position in the Roman or Reformed Religion Now while they keep close to the old way of disputing on the old received Principles if they can persuade us to spend our time about novel Whimsies and not well understood Experiments and neglect the severer Studies of the old Philosophy and Scholastical
for him (f) Panormit ubi supra ad cap. novimus 27. extra de verborum sig § 8. Dicendo quod ille est Imago Dei reducit sibi ad memoriam multos qui post delicta atrocia egerunt paenitentiam ut in Petro Apostolo Mariâ Magdalenâ similibus Then he cites the opinion of Hostiensis a great Canonist who expresly saith That whatever Intercession the Prelate may make to the Secular Judge for the Malefactor delivered to him his intention is that he must execute him for to that very end he delivers him * And this is evident by the authentick Constitutions of the Popes which gives the Inquisitors power Cogendi quoscunque magistratus ad exequendum eorum sententias constit 17. Alexandri 4. in bullario cherubim tom 1. p. 116. quocunque nomine censeantur ibid. § 1. p. 117. and they must execute the sentence absque sententiae revisione Leo 10. Constitut 43. Ediri Tom. 1. p. 456. Quicquid dicatur a Praelato ad hoc fit ista traditio ut puniatur morte That 's his desire and purpose though he pretends to pray for moderation and mercy And then he adds that the common opinion is that such intercession with the secular Judge has no reality in it Solet Communiter dici quod ista intercessio est potius pefucata colorata quam effectualis So that I have Hostiensis and the common opinion of the time (g) Floruit circa Ann 1440. And. Quensted de triis Scriptis virorum strium in Nicholao Tudesc which was Panormit name in which Panormitan writ of my opinion that such intercession is delusory and hypocritical and the Prelate seems only to ask that which he desires not and knows that the Judge neither dare nor can do it the delinquent being deliver'd up to the Secular Power to that very (h) Ad quid Ergo tradit seculari potestati cum ipsa eccles pâ—test cum punire paena minorâ— Pan. ibid. § 8. end that he may be executed Well but Panormitan seems not to approve this as being scandalous to the Church and against the Letter of the Canon And therefore he adds Certè isti non bene dicunt videntur dicere contra textum qui dicit Efficaciter (i) Innocentius 3. dicto cap. Novimus 27. extra de verb. sig Intercedendum Ergo non fuco No doubt they do speak against that Text and the practice of the Popish Prelates in this their hypocritical intercession though Pope Innocent be for it his infallibity being neither believed nor known in those times the time of Panormitan no less than three general Councils of their own (k) Concil Pisanum Ann. 1409. Sess 14. Constantinense Concil anno 1414. Sess 12. and Sess 37. Concil Basiliense Anno 1431. Sess 34. Panorm erat 1. Abbas 2. Archiepiscopus Panormitanus Cardinalis Obiit Anno 1443. Labbe descript in Nicholas Tudeschio having deposed several Popes as Hereticks within less than forty years before nor has Panormitan any thing to justify that practice or to free them from deep dissimulation and inexcusable Hypocrisy A Letter to Mr. R. T. concerning the Canon-Law allowing the Whipping of Hereticks as practised by Bishop Bonner at his house at Fulham FOR your Story of Bp. Bonner's cruelty I have read it in the Book of Martyr's Such punishments by Whipping Cudgelling c. (a) Cap. Cum fortius 1. extra de Calumniatoribus the Canon-Law allows even of their own men in Orders after degradation when they are highly peccant And a learned Popish Author in a Book purposely writ to prove the Popes Supreme co-ercive (b) Joseph Stephanus Valentinus de Potestate coactivâ quam Romanus Pontifex exercet in Saecularia c. Romae 1586. p. 209. power even to desposing Kings and Emperours and Dedicated to Sixtus 5. or Size-cinque as Q. Elizabeth call'd him I say that Author tells of a Rescript of Alexander the 3d. Quo Panormitanus Pontifex jubebatur loris flagrisque caedere criminis peracios eo solo temperamento adhibito ne flagella in sanguinis effusionem exirent So careful he was that no blood should be shed and yet that very Pope Alexander the 3d. raised Armies and murdered many thousands of the poor Waldenses I am Sir Your affectionate Friend and Servant T. B. Buckden Nov. 4. 1679. A Letter to the Earl of Anglesey Answering two Questions whether the Pope be Antichrist And whether Salvation may be had in the Church of Rome I Have had the Honour and Comfort to receive your Lordships very kind Letter and this comes to bring with my humble Service and Duty which are both due my hearty thanks for your continued though undeserved kindness For the two Queries your Lordship mentions they are at this time and in those Circumstances we and our Church now are most considerable and indeed deserve and require our timely and serious consideration whether we will serve God or Baal That is whether we will Notwithstanding our danger or Death with a generous and Christian courage and constancy maintain and profess our own Protestant Religion or for fear worldly ends and interest embrace the many gross Errors Superstition and stupid Idolatry of the Church of Rome This I say because I find it in a late Pamphlet positively affirmed that the difference between the Church of England and Rome is little only about some disputable Questions which do not hinder Salvation seeing it is confessed by Protestant Divines that Salvation may be had in the Popish Church and more cannot be had in that of Protestants So that it may seem to some to be an indifferent thing whether we be Papists or Protestants whether of the Roman or reformed Religion I pray God forgive them who believe and propagate this pernicious Opinion and give them the knowledge and Love of the truth But that I may come to the two Querirs The first is whether the Pope be Antichrist and to this I say 1. That though it be not much material what my Judgment is in this particular yet I do really believe the Pope to be Antichrist Some Reasons I have given why I think so in my last (a) Brutum fulmen or the Bull of the Pius 5. c. Observations 8. pag. 181. Pamphlet and have endeavoured to shew the groundless vanity of Grotius his opinion who would have Cajus Caligula and Doctor Hammonds Who would have Simon Magus to be Antichrist 2. The most Learned and Pious Divines of England ever since the Reformation and of Foreign Churches too have been of the same Opinion and Judg'd the Pope to be Antichrist so Jewell Raynolds Whitaker Vsher c. the Translators of our Bible into English in King James his time call the (b) In the Epistle of the Translators of the Bible to King James perfixed to our English Bibles of that Translation Pope THAT MAN OF SIN and in both our Universities the Question An Papa
them It being most certain that no positive Law of God or Man binds any save those to whom it is given nor them till after a sufficient promulgation 2. And Zechary in that Text expresly says That the Father and Mother of the false Prophet shall thrust him through kill him when he prophesieth Surely Mr. Calvin cannot think that a Father or Mother may kill a Heretique or false Prophet without going to the Judge And indeed Calvin saw this and there says Multo hoc durius est propriis manibus filium interficere quam si ad Judicem deferrent I will give you no further trouble That God Almighty would be graciously pleased to bless you and all yours is the prayer of Your most obliged faithful and thankful Friend and Servant Tho. Lincoln Buckden Jan. 26. 1684. A Letter answering a Question about the Liberty formerly allow'd to the Protestants in France to Print Books there against Popery c. Sir FOR your first Question Whether the Protestants in France have Printed any Books against the Doctrine of the Church of Rome I say 't is evident 1. That there have been many hundreds in France eminent in all kinds of Learning who have writ and Printed many things against the Romish Doctrine and Discipline and therefore are by name damn'd in their Indices Expurgatorii Such were to say nothing of Calvin or Beza Casaubon the Lord du Plessis Budaeus Robert and Henry Stephens Carolus Molinaeus Peter du Moulin c. these and hundreds more you may find damn'd in their Indices Expurgatorii 2. It is evident that the Protestants in France till this present King ruin'd them had several Vniversities in their command and under their jurisdsction and Presses and Printers belonging to them Now in those Universities they had publick Professors of Divinity who Read and disputed against every Error in the Popish Doctrine and then in their own Presses Printed their Disputations So in their University at Sedan they usually Printed their Disputations in the Year 1661. A good thick Volume of them was Printed with this Title Thesaurus Disputationum Theol. in almâ Sedanensi Academia habitarum variis temporibus c. And then they set down the Names of the Reverend Professors who at several times did moderate those Disputations And they are these Eight 1. P. Molinaeus 2. Ja. Capellus 3. Ab. Ramburtius 4. Sam. Maresius 5. Alex. Coâ—uinus 6. Lud. Le Blenc 7. Jos Le Vasseur 8. Jo. Alpaeus There are many more such Disputations had at Sedan And in the Year 1641. to omit others there was Printed a great Volume of Disputations in another Protestant University in which you have an express Confutation of all Points of Popery The Title of that great Volume is this Theses Theologicae in Academia Salmuriensi variis temporibus disputatae sub praesidio D. D. Sacrae Theologiae Professorum Lud. Capello Mose Amyraldo Josua Placaeo Salmurii 1641. 3. Besides all this the Protestants in France have many Synods wherein they have made many Canons to set down and explain their whole Doctrine and Discipline and then Printed them in contradiction to the Popish Synods of that Country For your second Question whether the Protestants in France Dedicated any of their Books to their King I do not now remember nor have I time to seek But I shall refer you to a Book which will give you a punctual account of many publick Disputations in France in former times between the Protestants and Papists and that before the King and Popish Bishops The Title of the Book is this Status Ecclesiae Gallicanae c. Londini 1676. Wherein you have an account of the Church of France from the first Plantation of it till the Reformation and thence down to this time to 1668. I am Sir Your affectionate Friend and Servant T. B. Feb. 22. 1685. A Lettter of the Bishop about the French Persecutions and of our Kings relieving and protecting the French Refugees and in which Letter the Popish Tenet of the intention of the Priest as necessary to the validity of the Sacrament is Confuted Sir I Received yours and with my hearty Love and Service return my thanks Though our Gazetts and some Letters told us that the French King was recover'd and abroad again yet I confess I did not believe it And you have given me some Reason why I should not when I consider his greatness I know there is none on Earth can punish him But when I consider his Prodigiously impious and injust Persecution and oppression of his innocent Subjects not only with Unchristian but most Barbarous and inhumane Cruelty I know there is an infinitely powerful and just Judge who can and in his good time will punish him ultor malorum instat a tergo Deus Pagans (a) Acts 28.4 knew it that great and signal Sins would have signal punishments which would follow and speedily fall upon them Raro antecedentem scelestum subsequitur poena pede claudo And when I consider the strangeness of his disease I cannot impute it to any casual or natural distemper in his Body but to the immediate and most just hand of Heaven to manifest his Justice and to demonstrate to the World that the great and most just Judge of Heaven and Earth can and will punish such barbarous and inhumane cruelties And as the Justice of God appears in punishing the impious persecutor so his unspeakable mercy and goodness in providing for those Innocent Persons who for his sake and the Gospel's are unjustly Persecuted For when I consider his Sacred Majesties chearful admission of those poor Persecuted Christians into his protection and his Brief in which are so many gracious expressions of his tender Affection and Charitable Commiseration of their miseries and Afflictions and so many powerful motives to incline his Subjects to a liberal Contribution when I further consider his Majesties not liberal but Magnificent Charity in Subscribing 1500 l. and some others by his example Subscribing 1000 l. some 500 l. some 300 l. some 200 l. c. such Sums as were never subscribed to any Brief before and when I consider the strange chearfulness of all People to contribute with a far more then usual liberality I say when I consider these particulars I cannot chuse but impute such a chearfulness such extraordinary and great Contributions to the Divine Providence and the immediate hand of God making all People willing to relieve their Persecuted Brethren So that the powerful providence of God evidently appears in this French Persecution 1. His Justice in punishing the impious Persecutor 2. His great Mercy in providing by such large Contributions for the Innocent Persons who suffer such Persecutions So that the Persecuted French Protestants are in duty bound and I doubt not but they will do it to acknowledge the gracious and powerful Providence of God and bless his most Holy Name who hath given his Sacred Majesty and his Subjects both ability and a chearful and Charitable
of Quality from London that they report in your great Town that the Bishop of Lincoln had indeed Subscribed the Address but his Clergy refus'd to Subscribe But the truth is that beside my self and 3. Arch-Deacons above 600 of my Clergy have actually subscribed it and their Subscriptions are now in my hand Sure I am that his Sacred Majesties gracious Promise to protect the Church of England as by Law established is such especially from a Roman Catholick Prince as deserves the utmost of our thanks and gratitude and most worthy to be acknowledg'd in a most humble and hearty Address and I fear that the obstinate denying to give him thanks in an Address may give his Majesty some reason to say He had little reason to protect them who would not thank him for it Sure I am that it is a Rule and a rational one too in your Canon-Law That (a) Concilium Lateranum sub Alexandro 3. Anno 1180. depactionibuslicitis illictis Can. 2. Propter ingratitudinem quod actum est revocatur For your Queries 1. Whether our Oxford Statutes now in Print be confirm'd by Act of Parliament I answer that they are not but only by the King and my Lord Arch-Bishop Laud then our Chancellour 2. To the second Query whether our Chancellour or Convocation have or do dispense with some of our Statutes I answer that the Statutes give them leave to dispense with several things and other things are by Statute to which they are sworn declared to be indispensable For there is a Statute with this Title De materia dispensabili in which the particulars are set down in which they may dispense And another Statute de materia indispensabili in which no dispensation is allow'd which is an answer to your 3d. Query I do remember that before our new Statutes the King has sent his Mandamus which has been obey'd to make some Doctors who otherwise could not have got such Degrees So about 60 years ago in King Charles the First 's time one Pierce had a Mandamus to be Doctor and the young Poets amongst other Rhimes had these Verses That Blockhead Pierce that Arch-Ignoramus He must be Dr. by the King 's Mandamus And in the last King's time several Mandamuses came and took effect 4. As for your other Query what Lateran Council it was which forbid Bastards to be Ordained and plurality of Benefices I answer it was the Lateran Council before cited For 1. For Bastards the words of the Councils are these (b) Dictum Concilium Lateranum De Depositione Clericorum Can. 19. apud Joverium de Concil pag. 117. Col. 4. Neque servi neque spurii sunt ordinandi 2. For plurality of Benefices the same Lateran Council hath these words (c) In dicto Concilio apud Joverium page 118. Col. 1. Uni plura Ecclesiastica beneficia non sunt committenda For your 4 Querie whether our College Statutes in Oxon be confirmed by Act of Parliament I know not and I believe few are yet I have heard that the Statutes of All-Soul's have been confirm'd by Act of Parliament For your last Query Whether Colleges have some Charters from the Crown to confirm their Founders Statutes This is most certain that all Colleges have and of necessity must have such Charters from the Kings for without such Charters they neither are nor can act as Corporations I am Sir Your Affectionate Friend and Servant T. Lincoln A Friend of the Bishop of Lincoln's writ a Letter to his Lordship for his judgment about wherein Mr. Chillingworth's peculiar excellency above other Writers consisted The Letter quoted a Book of Mr. Corbet mentioning him very unworthily viz. The Relation of the Siege of Glocester where in p. 12. he saith we understood that the Enemy i. e. the Army of King Charles the First had by the direction of the Jesuitical Doctor Chillingworth provided great store of Engines after the manner of the Roman Testudines cum pluteis with which they intended to have assaulted the parts of the City between the South and West Gates c. The Bishop therein was acquainted how Mr. Corbet was a Famous Presbyterian and as Mr. Baxter hath Printed it in his Works The Author of the Relation of that Siege and of a Discourse of the Religion of England asserting that reform'd Christianity setled in its due latitude is the stability and advancement of this Kingdom The Letter likewise mention'd Dr. Cheynel another Famous Presbyterian having in a most vile and abominable manner insulted over Mr Chillingworth's dead Body and his immortal Book at his Burial and the Bishop was requested to send an account of what he had heard of Mr. Chillingworth's being at that Siege and of the other outragious extravagâ—nce of Dr. Cheynel and as to which the Bishop return'd the following Answer viz. SIR I Receiv'd yours and in the very troublesome Circumstances I now am my Love and Service remembred I shall give you a short answer to your particular demands in your Letter 1. For Mr. Chillingworth none ever question'd this Loyalty to his King what Corbet in his Book you mention writes of him that he was in the Siege of Glocester in the King's Army assisting it to take the City is a great commendation of his Loyalty and Truth for I know Mr. Chillingworth was there in the Siege but whether as a Chaplain or Assistant only I know not For going thither to see Sir William Walter my good Friend who was a Commander there I did also see Mr. Chillingworth amongst the Comanders there And further I know that he dyed not by the Sword but Sickness and in the Parliament Quarters that Cheynell Buried him and when he was put into his Grave Cheynell cast his Book in with him saying dust to dust earth to earth and corruption to corruption afterwards when Cheynell drew near his death he was something Lunatick and distracted and spoke evil things several of such his wild Sayings were signified to us in Oxon but being so long since I have forgot the very words All these particulars concerning Cheynell were certainly known and believed in Oxon. 2. I send you my 5th Reason about the Idolatry of the Church of Rome which they would not License at Lambeth I have a Tract finish'd almost in vindication of the 5th Reason and in answer to the Objections of three or four Divines of our Church against it which if the good God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ graciously grant me life and health I purpose to publish and then you may expect to have two or three Copies of the whole Tract Lastly you desire to know wherein Mr Chillingworth's Excellency above other Writers did consist So that you seem to take it for granted that he has an Excellency if not above all yet above many or most Writers and I think so too But then the Case must be cautiously stated for his excellency we speak of cannot consist in any extraordinary knowledge he
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
Jesuit or no I cannot resolve you as to that Question Yet this is evident that his whole Book is a Defence of the Jesuits against the Jansenists and others who have writ against the Jesuits Morals and shews that the Jesuits are not to be tax'd for those Opinions as tho they were the first Authors of them when many Catholick Authors as he calls them Schoolmen and Casuists of great note held the same Opinions long before the Jesuits had a Being 2. When you ask of what Authority he is or a Quotation out of him you must know 1. That his Book was condemn'd at Paris by the Sorbon and the Form of their condemnation you have at the end of the Pragmaetique (a) Sanctio Pragmatica Caroli 7. Edita Paris 1666. pag. 1048. 1049. Sanction of Charles the VI. King of France 2. This Censure of the Sorbon is damn'd by no less man than Pope Alexander the VII in his (b) Vide Indicem Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri 7. jussu Editum Romae 1667. pag. 294. where you have that Bull. Bull dated at Rome 7 Cal. Julii Anno 1665. So that it seems Gyumenius was of no small esteem at Rome when the Pope does è Cathedra damn that Censure of the Sorbon which damn'd Guymenius his Book For the Words of the Bull are Nos motu proprio ex certa scientia nostra deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine prefatam Censuram damnamus c. So that it has no little Authority as it seems to Buckden Feb. 21. 1684. Your Affectionate Friend and Servant Tho. Lincoln A Letter about the Papists founding Doninion in Grace Sir I Received yours which was very welcome to me because yours I have this week been in a hurry of business it being Ordination week so till now I had no time with my Love and Service to return my thanks for your kind Letter and the Intelligence communicated in it My humble Service to the Earl of Anglesey who was pleas'd to send me a Copy of the Popes Letter to the French King to incourage and commend him for his impious and Barbarous Persecution of his poor Protestant Subjects I do believe it is true what was by the Earl Subscribed to the Popes Letter Testor hunc Papam esse praedecessoribus similem though some cry him up for his moderation For your Query whether the Papists affirm any where Quod Dominium fundatur in gratia I have here inclosed what I think is evidently true They do believe and in their Authentick Writings profess that Hereticks for denying some Articles of the Popish Faith forfeit all (a) This does evidently appear to omit all other proofs by the Lateran Council under Innocent III. Can. 3. and especially Cap. Ad abolendum 9. Cap. Excommunicamus 13. Extra de Hereticis Dominion and Right to any thing they possess and their life too And if this were not sufficient poor Hereticks in their sense of which number I am one and by God's assistance ever shall be do forfeit not only right to Temporal things here but to Heaven hereafter for they pronounce them eternally damn'd This is evident not only in the Writings of private persons but in their publick and most Authentick Records you know that erroneous and most impious Constitution of Pope Boniface the VIII received into the (b. Cap. Vnum Sanctum 1. De Majorit obedientia Extrab Commun Body of their Law Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae esse omninò de necessitate salutis And this is expresly confirmed by Pope Martin and the Council of Constance where they damn the contrary Opinion as an Error in Wickliff who said (c) Articulus 41. Inter Articulos Wicklefi in Concil Constant damnatos Non est de necessitate salutis credere Romanam Ecclesiam esse omnium supremam And to say no more Leo X. and his Lateran (d) Sess 11. Apud Binnium Tom. 9.155 Council approve and innovate that Constitution of Pope Boniface the III. I am Sir Buckden Dec. 24. 1685. Your Affectionate Friend and Servant T. L. The Substance of a Preface made by the Right Reverend Dr. Barlow Late Bishop of Lincoln to a Discourse concerning the Gunpowder-Treason and the Manner of its Discovery together with the Speech of King James the I. upon that occasion and a Relation of the Proceedings against those Conspirators containing their Examinations Tryals and Condemnations Reprinted 1679. To which are added by way of Appendix several Papers or Letters of Sir Everard Digby one of the Chief Criminals relating to the said Plot. OUR Reverend Author begins by telling us that the said Book was no new but an old approved Book Reprinted by the Counsel and Authority of some Pious and Learned men that 't is no lying Legend or Romance nor any unlicenc'd seditious Pamphlet but an Authentick History of an Impious and Monstrous Roman Catholick Conspiracy or of a Popish containing the Examination Tryal Evident Conviction and just Condemnation of those Popish-powder-Traytors Then proceeding to open the hainousness of the Attempt he tells us that it was a Villany so black and horrid and not only unchristian but so inhuman and barbarous as never had any Parallel in any Age or Nation Jewish Pagan or Turkish nor indeed adds he could have before the Invention of Gunpowder and the cursed Institution of the Order of Jesuits by the Fanatical maim'd Suoldier Ignatius Loyola the World being before both without such pernicious Instruments so set for such a mischief as Gunpowder and without any Order of men so impious as the Jesuits to approve or design and much less to attempt to execute a Villany so manifestly contrary to the Light of Reason and all Humanity as well as to Scripture and Revelation For tho he confesses it true that the Pope and his Party in these last 600 Years have murthered many thousand better Christians than themselves under the mistaken notion of Hereticks by Armies raised purposely and encouraged to such bloody and unchristian Executions as also by their more barbarous and inhumane Inquisitions and premeditated Assassinations as sufficiently appears by their own Authors For that an eminent Writer among which viz Math. Paris in Hen. III. ad annum 1234. pag. 395. tells us of an infinite number of Hereticks viz. Waldenses murthered that our own Arch-bishop Vsher proves out of their Authors that in the space of 36 Years in France only 104747 of the same Waldenses were cruelly slain upon the same account that Dr. Crackanthorp in his Book against the Arch-bishop of Spalata cap. 18. § 19. c. proves no less evidently by their own Historians that about 142990 of the same poor harmless people were in 60 years time murthered by the same bloody Party and in the same Countrey And tho to pass by a Cloud of other Witnesses a prudent and sober Roman Catholick viz. Father Paul of Venice Hist Council Trent 119 120 tells us first of 4000 Waldenses and then
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
Sins to provoke him to leave us to their Wills whose Mercies are so cruel but that he will give us Grace so thankfully to live under the sense of past favours as to make them sure pledges of future Mercies He concludes with an indication of the particular Motives which most probably induced that Bloody â—arty to such a desperate and unheard of attempt as this Gun-power-Treason which he thus lays open When that mischevious Party saw that all the black Designs they had hatch'd ever since the Reformation came to nothing that particularly all their wicked Contrivances against the Life of the late Queen Elizabeth in order to bring in the Queen of Scots tho' they had endeavour'd it by Poyson Stabbing Pistol open War Rebellion c. proved successless and when they saw King James in quiet possession of the Throne and consider'd his great Learning and Zeal to the Protestant Religion to be of invincible proof against all their deluding inticements to the contrary they lost all patience and by a new and unparallel'd Villany resolved to dispatch him and his Kingdom too in some sence with one single blast of Hell bred Gunpowder That since he would not favour their Religion he not never a Patriot in his Great Council might be left alive to oppose it But that which added fuel to their Rage and blew their fury to such a heighth that it could no longer forbear flashing out against that good Prince their lawful King was says our Prefacer a publick protestation he made before his Principal Lords both Spiritual and Temporal and declared to all the Judges the Lord Chancellour and all the Great Officers of State in the Star-Chamber 12 Feb. 2 Jacob. Ann. 1604. as appears by Judge Crook's Reports Printed 1689. Part 2. Ann. Jacob. 2. pag 17. and by Sir Francis Moor's Reports pag. 755. exprest in Law-French Both which attest as is abovesaid The chief substance of the said Protestation was to this purpose viz. That he never intended to give any Toleration to Popery and that he would spend the last drop of his blood in his body before he would do it c. The occasion of which was a scandalous Report which the Discontented Puritan Party had spread abroad of the King as if he meant to grant a Toleration to Popery which so highly incensed his Majesty that both to contradict it and confute it he made that pubiick and solemn Protestation above cited the substance of which our Prefacer tells us he faithfully Transcribed out of our Authentick Records as a thing worthy of perpetual Memory and the knowledge both of this present Age and of all posterity tho' it be now almost forgot And thus as that Wise and Learned King sought to escape the scandal arising from the Calumnies of the one he had like to have fallen a Sacrifice to the other Party viz. the Romanists whose fury and despair was raised to the highest extremity by that protestation by which they were plainly convinced that as the King never intended to approve their Religion in his own person so he never design'd to Tolerate it at all in others So ends the matter of the Preface of this Pious Learned and Zealous Champion of our Church against those old and dangerous Adversaries of Rome to which he adds nothing else but a Loyal and hearty Prayer that God would still preserve and bless his then Majesty and whole Royal-Family and continue to detect and by his powerful Providence to defeat all the impious Conspiracies of their Enemies It is dated at London on the first day of February 1678. and subscribed thus Courteous Reader thy faithful Friend and Servant T. L. The Substance of a Discourse writen by the Reverend and Learned Dr. Barlow Late Lord Bisâ—op of Lincoln consulting Mr. R. Baxter's Tenet in his Saints Everlasting Rest that Common and special or saving Grace differ only gradually A Gentleman for whom our R. Author had no small consideration having desired his Opinion in that Question viz. Whether the difference between â—ommon and Special or Saving Grace be Specifical or only Gradual as likewise his Sense of Mr. Baxter's Discourse concerning that Point he tells him That though it be of small consequence what his Opinion is and though he be loath to censure any man's Positions or Proofs of them especially Mr. Baxters whom he highly esteems for his Learning and Industry his Moderation and Ingenuity yet in obedience to his said Friend's commands without any further Apology taking the same liberty to judge of other Mens Discourses which he freely gives all men to judge of his he declares to him 1. That he believes the Difference to be more than Gradual 2. That Mr. Baxter's Discourse doth not concludingly prove the contrary Which that he may not seem to assert gratis and precariously he tells him he will use this Method viz. 1. He will fairly represent Mr. Baxter's Reasons Secondly He will give such an Answer as he thinks may pass for a just Solution of them Obj. Mr. Baxter to prove That Common and Special Graee differ only grâ—dually thus argues in his Saints Everlasting Rest pag. 225 c. Is not common Knowledge special Knowledge common Belief Special Belief all Knowledge Belief Is not Belief the same thing in one and another though but one saving Our Understandings and Wills are Physically the same of the like substance and an Act and an Act are Accidents of the same kind and we suppose the Object the same Common Love to God special Love to God are both Acts of the same Will c. Sol. To give a just Answer to which and withall to state the Question and give the Reasons and Proofs of his former Positions with the more evidence and perspicuity he considers Consi I. That by Grace in this Questionâ— is understood somewhat inherent in us by what Name soever we please to call it and not the Favour and Love of God to his people which is commonly call'd by the same Name of Grace in the Scripture 1. Because the Graces here meant are properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Gratious and Gratuitous effects of that Original Grace that bestows them which is the Love and Favour of God and not that Original Grace it self and are such as are subjectively inherent in us whereas the Love and Favour of God is subjectively in God and terminatively only in us as it produces those gracious effects in us which are here meant by the word Graces 2. Because the Grace of God as it is taken only for his Love to us admits of no degrees either of increase or deminution being as all other Acts are in God like God himself absolutely simple without the least Composition either in Essence or Degree Consi II. We are to understand by Grace in this Controversy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 something superadded to a man already in being and which he has by Grace or Favour and not by Nature And therefore
Councils at Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon c. Oecumenical or General Councils 'T is granted we commonly call them so But then the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies the World must be taken as many times it is not for the whole World absolutely nor for the whole Christian World but as it is in the (a) Luk. 2.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gospel for the Roman World there came a Decree says Luke from Augustus that all the World should be Taxed that is all the Empire or Roman World for he neither did nor could Tax any out of his own Empire and Jurisdiction And on this account I take it for certain and I am sure it is so that there never was any Council more than Imperial and so none truly Oecumenical and therefore none so much as pretended to be infallible And hence it follows that the Christian Church never had any infallible Guide because no such Council as they pretend is their Guide 5. The Church of Rome has has no just pretence io Infallibility 5. And yet further the Church of Rome which only pretends to Infallibility has no not so much as probable ground for that pretence That this may appear I say 1. It is confess'd that no Church Rome excepted has any just ground to pretend to infallibility 2. And I say that the Church of Rome has no more reason or ground to pretend to infallibility than the Church at Jerusalem Antioch Smyrna or Philadelphia nay than the Church of Paris Madrid or Oxford For 1. It is certain that no Church is per se ex naturâ suâ c. by its natural Constitution Infallible and therefore the Infallibility of the Church if there be any must necessarily proceed from the promises of God in Christ to give Grace and assistance to preserve her from errour So that such Promises only can be a just ground of such infallibility Now the Church of Rome has no more promise of such assistance than the Churches above-named or any other Christian Church in the World This will I believe seem strange to those who have irrationally inslaved their understandings to believe without and against reason that the Popish Church is infallible only because she says so However it will concern them to seek and find such promise made to Rome in Scripture for 't is in vain to seek it elsewhere and if they find no such promise as I say and am sure they cannot then they may be sure too that their Popish Church having no such promise is not infallible If any who thinks otherwise can and will produce such promise of Infallibility made to Rome more than to any other Church I who should think my self happy to have an Infallible Guide shall with all gratitude and speed become his Proselyte In the mean time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is best to continue Protestant till better proofs be produc'd for their pretended Infallibility least otherwise we should mistake a Planet for a fixed Star and which will neither warm or direct us an ignis fatuus for true fire certainly no rational and considering person who has a due care of his Soul and Salvation will follow Rome as an Infallible Guide till he be which never can be well assured that she is so 2. It is certain that admitting a General Council to be a Guide infallible and the Trent-Synod to have been such a Council both which are demonstratively false I say both these admitted the Church of Rome neither at present hath nor for above an hundred years last past had any more Infallible Guide than we Protestants nor probably is ever like to have For it is certain the Trent-Council ended Anno (a) Vide Bullam Pii Papae 4. super declarat temporis ad observand Decreta Concil Trident. dat Romae 1564. 1563. and since that time there has been none nor the divided State of Christendom considered is any like to be Especially if we consider what all know that the Popes who pretend a sole right to call Councils who most needs Reformation come to Councils as an old Bear to a Stake where they are sure to be well pull'd and baited Now is it not ridiculous and irrational to tell us that we are in a dangerous condition wanting our Infallible Guide to end our Controversies when they have none to end their own Some Differences and Controversies we have nor was the Church of God ever free from them no not in the Apostles times when there were Judges indeed Infallible but they have more and greater witness that (b) See the Journal of Monsieur de S. Amour concerning the Propositions controverted between the Jansenists and Jesuits c. great and notwithstanding the Pope's Definition yet undecided Controversie between the Jansenists and Molinists that about the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary not yet determin'd nay after two Kings of Spain (c) Vide Legat. Philipi 4. 4. Reg. Hispaniae ad Paul 5. Greg. 15. per Luc. Maddingum c. had with great expence and solicitation importun'd two Popes to determine it yet neither they nor the Trent-Council did nor dar'd determine it Witness also that greater Controversie between the Church and Kingdom of France and the Jesuits and Court of Rome about the Pope's Supremacy Infallibility c. In all six propositions believed at Rome defended by the Jesuits and Canonists and derided (d) Vide Arrâ—st de la 〈◊〉 de Perlâ—ment du Mar 163â— at Paris both by the Sorbone and Parliament there Once more that great and fundamental Controversie in the Church of Rome even about this Infallible Guide we are now speaking of whether it be the Pope alone or the Council alone or both together c. or who it is I say this Controversie is not yet determin'd Now is it not ridiculous to tell us of our danger and importune us to be of your Church on pretence of an Infallible Guide to solve and satisfie our Doubts and end our Differences When we evidently see that your own Differences are greater and more than ours Whence we conclude as well we may that either you have no Infallible Guide or if you have then he does not declare and give his Definition for truth or if he do you disobey it because we see your Differences continue So that in this the Church of Rome is like that pitiful Mountebank who said he had an excellent Remedy to cure a Cough and yet coughed himself grievously even while he told it for some he had and so may Rome so simple and easie to believe him 6. 6. The Councilâ— which â—â—e Church of Rome approves and calls General in many things erroneous and impious I say faâ—ther that some of those Councils which the Church of Rome approves and receives as General Councils are so far from being Infallible that they are actually false and in their Decrees and Definitions Erroneous and Impious for
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
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