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
3. cap. 2. parag 12. pag. 188. Gal. 5.22 But before becomes to the proof of this he confesses he has the Jesuits and some Remonstrants against him such as Maldonat in Joh. 9. c. and Mart. Becan in Compend Man lib. 1. cap. 16. Quest 3. pag. 335. and in Summ. Theol. part 2. Quest 8. pag. 802. and Pet. Bertius de Apostas Sanct. pag. 42 43. Act. Synod Remonstr in Defens Artic. 5. de persever Sanct. pag. 230 231. who in order to establish a worse Errour viz. The final Apostacy of the Saints assert That this common or temporary faith is not only specifically but even gradually the same with saving faith and would justifie if persevered in whose Arguments he passes by as undeserving a confutation being so pitifully weak and because his Learned and Ingenious Adversary Mr. Baxter proceeds not so far as to assert That such a faith can justifie However by the by he tells us that he conceives that it may be manifestly evinced against those Adversaries by many Circumstances of the Text in Matt. 13.5 6 21 22. where common faith is described by four Conditions that cannot possibly agree to a saving faith that it must needs be more than gradually different from it Now proceeds he though this were sufficient to prove his abovesaid position yet he will still add some more distinct Confirmations of it which he does by the following additional Reasons viz. Reason 1. Drawn from the vast difference between the nature of the Causes and first Principles of these two sorts of Faith because the one is Heaven-born immediately from the Spirit of Christ which sows in us an Immortal seed of faith which can never die but must overcome sin in the Elect and work Regeneration And the Other is only a Humane faith wrought by Humane Means and assents to Divine Truths out of meer Humane Motives and by meer Humane Causes as false Reasonings or more forcible Temptations and Persecutions may be overthrown and extinguisht Reason 2. From the different Nature and proper acts of both Qualities saving belief being the first Spiritual Life by which a Christian lives and is justified Heb. 10.38 whereas common belief is often in them who are dead in Trespasses and Sins and neither justifies sanctifies nor saves Reason 3. Because 't is evident common faith may be in a very high degree in some Impious and Vnregenerate Persons who have acute parts and are Learned and Industrious and thrive into a Radicated Habit and a great measure of knowledge of both speculative and practical Divine Truths which by their Learning they may be able to demonstrate and may really believe and assent to and yet never proceed to pay true obedience to c. And because though there are many degrees of saving faith too from the Child to the Strong Man in Christ which include far less knowledge than some degrees of common faith yet the weakest of them is saving whereas the highest degree of common faith can neither justifie nor save a plain Evidence these two faiths are of kinds as different as Heaven and Earth Reason 4. Is because common Grace as the knowledge of several Tongues and of many Divine Truths as it is generally a Habit or Disposition acquired by our Natural Faculties improved by Industry Education c. and so depending upon mutable principles as our Will and Vnderstanding so they may be lost again by negligence or malice whereas saving faith being produced by the Eternal and Immutable Spirit of Christ is incorruptible and can never die nor be lost John 17.3 1 Pet. 1.23 Heb. 10.38 John 6.47 51 54. See Aquin. 1. 2. Quaest 51. Art 4. in Corp. Artic. which he proves further by conferring 1 John 3.9 5.1.4 8. with 1 John 5.18 Reason 5. Is because though common and saving faith may have the same material object viz. Divine Truths revealed by God in the Gospel as that Jesus is the Son of God c. yet these truths are embraced by these two faiths upon different Motives and by far different means the one being built only upon Humane Mediums and Arguments such as Vnregenerate Persons by their natural parts helpt with Learning c. may attain to which is an assent like its Principles that begot it humane and fallible whereas saving faith proceeding from Christ's Spirit and built upon his immediate Illumination and Testimony which is Divine and Infallible must of necessity be an assent differing from the former more than in degree and be like its cause Divine and Infallible likewise which proof he further illustrates by comparing the difference between Opinion and Science with that between common and saving faith and by several Scriptural Arguments besides Reason 6. Is because if common and saving faith were essentially the same then Irregenerate and Impious Persons who have common Graces may be as gracious and as true Believers as the best Saints though not in so high a degree as the smallest grain of Gold is as truly Gold as the whole Wedge but that this consequence is de facto false Ergo c. And that it is really false appears by this says he that 't is as impossible for a Christian to have any other Theological Vertues or Graces without true faith as 't is for a Man according to the Moralists to have any other Moral Vertues without Prudence which is the Root of them all And further adds he if it be true as Mr. Baxter says in Exercit. de fid c. Art 30. pag. 279. Rat. 7. and Aphoris in Explicat Thes 69. pag. 266 and 267. That the Essence of saving faith consists in accepting Christ and loving him as our Lord and Saviour then it follows that those who do not so accept and love him have not the essence of saving faith and therefore that since 't is evident that no Irregenerate Persons though somtimes full fraught with common faith yet do ever so accept and love Christ therefore it follows their faith must needs be of a very different kind from saving faith Q.E.D. Reason 7. And last is Because if common and saving grace be essentialiy the same then it would follow that a Man who has an historical Faith whilst Unregenerate by the help of Natural parts Learning c. and afterwards should become Regenerate would by the Spirit of Christ receive only a greater degree of the same faith he had before and consequently that saving Grace would not be a Gift of God's as to its essence but only as to its degree because we should owe the essence of it only to our natural parts c. and the degree only to Christ's Spirit But this Doctrine says he is contrary to express Scripture and resolved to be so by the Ancient Church and by her expresly condemned in her Councils as Pelagian and Heretical and therefore it follows that the difference between common and saving faith must needs be specifical as appears in Concil Arausicann 2 Can. 4 5 6 7 8.
same as independent and 〈◊〉 dependent being depended upon another dependent being there would be 〈◊〉 Prâ—â—ressus in Infinitum since no independent being can be to stop at where 〈…〉 are dependent or else a circular making 〈…〉 to depend mutually upon one another 〈◊〉 by this means one being which is dependent upon another is posterior to that other upon which it depends and in the mean time prior to that same other being which has likewise a mutual dependence upon it For whatever depends upon another is either an Accident or a Substance but 〈◊〉 Acâ—ident is naturally posterior to the â—â—â—stance upon which alone it can depend and one substance cannot depend upon another substance except by way of causality which plainly imports a natural priority in the one and posteriority in the other So that these consequences which are both equally absurd of a progress in Infinitum and making one and the same thing both prior and posterior in the same respect since all the dependence is either by the w y of accident or substance ut supra do necessarily follow upon this supposition that all things are dependent Wherefore an independent being must be acknowledged and that is what We call God Arg. III. There must be a supream Cause of all things which is caused by none otherwise there would be a Progressus in Infinitum in the causes of things as is evident but this progressus is absurd and impossible Therefore there is an independent Cause above all the rest which is God Obj. 1. These arguments may perhaps prove that there is an increated independendent first cause of all things yet they cannot prove that there is but one only and consequently cannot demonstrate the existence of the true God who is unus solus Ergo c. Answ I. Dato non concesso that they are not sufficient to prove the unity of God yet they are sufficient to infer the negatum viz. That there is some increated independent being cognoscible by the light of Nature which is called God But I Answ II. By the same very force that they prove the existence of a Deity they likewise infer the unity of the same for if there be a being omnimode perfectum it is impossible that there should be any more than one because there can be nothing to distinguish them one from another and distinct they must be else they could not be a plural but all one and the same entity Now what ground of distinction can there be betwixt two beings all perfect It cannot be any thing equally lodged in them both for in that they both agree it cannot be any thing lodg'd in one and not in another for that would destroy the Hypothesis viz. That they are two all-perfect beings by making one to enjoy a perfection an imperfection it is not a subject capable of which the other is deprived of and consequently cannot be omnimode perfectum Obj. 2. God is a simple and uncompounded being Therefore he cannot be known by natural light The Reason of the consequence is Because God cannot be fully comprehended and adequately known by natural light and since he is a simple being indivisible and without parts he cannot be known in part for he has no parts so he must either be known adequately or not all As it is in a point or punctum indivisibile if it be touched it cannot be touched in part because it has no parts but must be touched all over if touched at all so in our natural knowledge of God since it is confess'd that we cannot know him adequately neither can we know him at all for God is a simple indivisible being tota indivisibilis entitas and so cannot be known eâ— parte or in ordine ad unum non in oâ— ine ad aliud because there is nâ—t unum aliud in God Answ I. It does not follow that because God is an Invisible being therefore he must be known adquately and totally yea rather the contrary seems to follow because what is simple and invisible cannot be known totally or adequately since God who wants parts cannot be considered as a totum for this has always a respect to parts which God has not Answ II. God may be known totally and adequately as to his existence that is we may by the light Nature discover that there is a Being simple indivisible c. tho' we cannot know all the immense properties of that being what they are and fully comprehend the nature of the same as I may know that there is such a Man as Plato tho' in the mean time I cannot tell what he is nor what are all the truths that may be enuntiated concerning him so I may naturally know quod sit Deus tho' not quid sit secundum se totum for the Creature which is the mean by which we arise to the knowledge of God is not an effect adequate to him an omnipotent Cause who might have created many more if he wou'd and therefore it cannot give us the adequate knowledge of him yea our finite intellect can never by pure natural means comprehend an infinite Being either in Patriâ or in Viâ— as Moses testifies who tho' he was familiar with God yet could not see his fore-parts and St. Paul who tho' ravished to the third Heavens yet could not fathom the unsearchable depths of the incomprehensible God Answ III. Our knowledge of God is not sensitive like that of touching a point but intellective and by this intellective knowledge we do not know him as he is in himself but after the manner of Men and by a conception suitable to our Natures so we must conceive the Mercy Justice Omnipotence c. of God as distinct attributes while in the mean time there is no diversity of perfections in God but all are one and the same indivisible Entity And so God if considered in se and as he is in himself he is indivisible but as the object of our understanding he must be conceived in a divisible manner by forming inadequate apprehensions of him prescinding from one thing and considering another for tho' there be not unum aliud in God à parte rei and as he is in himself yet there is after the manner of our conceptions of him Objection III. God is neither cognoscible by the light of Nature nor can the bein of a God be believ'd by Faith not cognoscible by the light of Nature because his existence is an Article of Faith and so depends on Revelation as being a supernatural truth above the power of nature And it cannot be believed by Faith because the Testimony of God is the only Motive and ratio formalis why I give the assent of my Faith unto any proposition or truth so that all Faith presupposes both that there is a God and that he speaks true for upon the truth of his testimony I believe and there cannot be any faith till the existence of God be acknowledged which it
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
the begâ—tting but believing Abraham For to all and only these were the promises made Gal. 3.16 29. And all these are call'd the Fathers Rom. 15.8 to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers Acts. 26.6 There is mention of the Gospel or promise made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to Abraham and his Seed 2. The Question speaks of these Fathers under the Old Covenant As to the Nature of a Covenant the word in the Hebrew is Benith coming from a word that signifies not as properly to create but to order and institute It s Nature is Artificially explain'd by Schielder and others and especially Buxtorfe in that Learned Work of his of Thirty Years And so what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is among the Hellenists and Faedus or Pactum among the Latinists Calvin the Lawyer and Schardius and Nebrissensis may be Consulted in their juridical Glossarys on the words Pactum and Faedus and Mynsinger and Sckneidwin on Instit lib. 3. Tit. 14. De Obligationibus may be usefully apply'd to for the Nature of Pactions and especially Grotius to name no more on the 1 of Mat. p. 1 2. This then is the thing we say that the Fathers or the Faithful who lived under the Oeconomy of the Law obtained the Salvation of their Souls by means of our Saviours Death Now here we shall demonstrate it distinctly in thesi ex parte Rei that the Fathers had Salvation by Christ's means and likewise in Hypothesi ex parte modi how they had it Now when we say the Fathers had Salvation by means of Christ it is confessed by all that they went to Heaven after their Deaths but whether by the Mercy of God or his absolute benignity their Sins were forgiven or for the merits of Christ is not so clear to all neither among all those Christians who have given up their names to Christ is it look'd on as a piece of Catholick truth for it appears out of the Racovian Catechism that the Socinians deny it and the Socinians argue from Isaiah 43.25 I even I am he that blotteth out thy Transgressions for mine own sake c. that therefore they had forgiveness only on the account of the Divine benignity without any respect to the Death of Christ But to shew that they obtained forgiveness by Christs means we may refer to Acts 4.12 Neither is there Salvation in any other for there is none other Name under Heaven given among Men whereby we must be saved But they will tell us That was true from the time the Apostle said so But I shall mind them of the foregoing Verse this is the Stone which was set at nought of you Builders which is become the Head of the Corner and that the Church in Scripture is compared to a Building and of which Christ being the Corner Stone both Jews and Gentiles meet in him and that according to Eph. 2.20 21. they come under the notion of Fellow Citizens with the Saints and of the Household of God and are built on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the Corner Stone in whom all the Building fittly framed together groweth unto an Holy Temple in the Lord. But yet to make it more clear if it be possible If the Death of Christ did give Redemption and Remission of Sins in the Old Testament then the People of God had Salvation by this means But they had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Redemption as saith the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 9.15 And for this Cause he is the Mediatour of the New Testament that by means of Death for the Redemption of the Transgressions that were under the First Testament they which are called might receive the promise of Eternal Inheritance Two things are very clear from this place of Scripture First That Christ did procure for the Fathers that lived under the Old Testament Redemption from their Sins Secondly That he did procure an Eternal Inheritance for them which was the thing to be proved Now as to the place out of Isaiah of Gods blotting out Transgressions for his own names sake and therefore not for Christ's I deny the Consequence For that doth not exclude Christs merits but the persons whose Sins are there forgiven And thus God may be still said in the New Testament to pardon our Sins for his names sake And so 't is said Rom. 8.32 He that spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all how shall he not with him also freely give us all things God now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Omnia nobis gratificatur i. e. gratis dat scilicet ex parte nostri non Christi qui pretio numerato captos nos è captivitate liberaverat For this you may see Lud. Lucium contra Michael Gittichium de Satisfact Christi in solutione arg 3. p. 27. Having shewn that the Fathers were saved by Christ ex parte Rei we shall now shew it in Hypothesis and by the special means by which the Fathers did gain Salvation by Christ And here we say 1. That they might gain Salvation by Christ First By being purely passive in receiving it without exerting any Act of Faith as Infants are saved by Christ But Secondly We say the Fathers under the Law were active in obtaining Salvation by Christ and that they did believe on Christ and did apply to themselves what Christ should merit The Socinians say they were justified by Faith but by Faith in God and not in his Son But that the truth may more plainly appear I shall lay down this Conclusion and prove it That the Saints under the Law did obtain Salvation by Faith in Christ Here we may Consider the Saints as such who were notae eminentioris as Abraham David and the Prophets or notae inferioris ut è plebe indocti literarum rudes and we may likewise Consider Faith as twofold I mean Faith in Christ First Explicit by which Christ is directly known in himself and is expresly believed Second Implicit by which Christ is not expresly known and believed but only implicitly and by Consequence Cum ex uno in thesi directè cognito creditoque sequitur Christum in hyyothesi implicitè esse creditum So he who believes that God will by means disposed by his Providence procure his Salvation though he knows not what those means are may be said implicitly to believe on Christ as the primary of those means Now here we say that the Saints of more eminent note did explicitly believe on Christ as their Redeemer This is asserted both by Papists and Protestants As we may see out of Canus Relect. part 2. p. 753. Becanus Tractat. de Analog V. N. Testamenti cap. 2. Q. 7. Lombard L. Sent. 3. Dist 25. Hooperus Glocestrensis in Symbolum Art 69. Rivet in Isag ad Sacram Script cap. 27. Cunaeus de Repub. Judaeor lib. 3. c. 9. I shall now shew that those Holy Men of Eminent note
Universal Use of Scripture therefore that Preface totally and many other things in his Commentaries are damn'd by the Inquisitors * Ind. expurgat Belgico Vlyssiponensi verbo Jacob. Faber and all his Works prohibited by Clement 8. (b) Possevinus in apparatu sacro verbo Jacob Faber till they be purg'd i. e. corrupted and spoil'd by the Inquisitors and their Indices 3. Writers on the Epistles and Apocal. if not all or most are these 1. Antient as 1. Theod. in omnes Pauli Epistolas numero 14. He has nothing on the seven Canonical Epistles James Peter John and Jude nor the Revelation he is amongst the Antients one of the best 2. Ambrose in omnes Pauli Epistolas exceptâ ad Hebr. peradventure because that Epistle was not in his time received in the Roman Church (c) Epistolam ad Hebraeos inter Canon Scripturas consuetudo Latina non accipit Hier. in cap. 8. Isaiae Tom. 4. p. 32. Col. 2. idem ait cap. 6. Isaiae ibid. pag. 24. Col. 9. which may be the reason too why St. Hierom has no Comment on that Epistle nor any Preface to it as he has to most Books of the Bible but those Commentaries are denied to be Ambroses by many (a) Rivetum vid. ejus Critica Sacra lib. 3. cap. 18. p. 291. Bellarm. de Script Eccles in Ambr. p. 130 131 c. and suspected by more 3. Primasius Vtiensis circa annum 545. 4. Sedulius circa annum 430. 5. (b) Vbi supra in Oecumenio pag. 293. Oecumenius quisque demum fuerit in omnes Pauli Canon Epist cum quo conjungitur Arethas Caesariensis in Apocal. who he was and when he lived is uncertain Bellar. places him after the year 1000. and some sooner His Commentary indeed is a Catena taken out of (c) See their names in Posssevines Apparatus sacer verbo Oecumen about 121 Antient Authors for so many he cites and amongst them he often cites Photius whence 't is evident he liv'd after Photius who flourish'd after the middle of the 9th Century c. 2. Modern and 1. Protestants such as Conrad Vorstius on all the Epistles save that to the Hebrews who has 1. The Analysis 2. The Paraphrasis 3. Schola in Paraphrasin 2. The loci communes of every Chapter 2. Dr. Hammond on the Epist and Apocal. sed cautè legendus for he (d) See his Notes on Joh. 5.2 Lit. a the healing power not divine but natural 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Messenger not Dei Angelus So Act. 1.25 the Paraphr and Notes refers the words his own Place to Mathias not Judas and Act. 11.30 in the Paraph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops properly in the Note (d) no secondary Presbyters inferiour to Bishops once nam'd in Scripture 3. Secondary Priests not Jure Divino or no Divine proof that they are so hath divers Novel Opinions and Expositions inconsistent with the Text or Truth or the Judgment of Antiquity and several mistakes in Geograph Chronol (e) 2 Thes in the Argument praefix'd he says that Epistle was writ Anno Christi 51. then cap. 2. v. 3. the Man of Sin was not then revealed and yet he says in Paraphr Notis that Simon Magus was the Man of Sin and yet he and his Heresies were published if not much sooner â—â—an Anno Christi 44. as is certain out of Hiâ—â— de Illust Eccles Doct. cap. 1. Bar. Annal. Tom. 11. ad Ann. 44. 351 525. and Dr. Hammond himself on 1 Pet. 5.13 Not. Tit. D. History c. 3. Cameronis Mirothecium Evang. c. Lud. Capelli Spicilegium both bound up together Printed in Quarto Anno 1632. have many short and considerable Notes on many particular places in the Epist and Apoc. 2. Papist such as 1. Estius in Epistolas one of the best Popish Writers on that Subject 2. Joh. Gagnaeius in omnes Epist Apoc. brevissima facillima Scholia Octavo Ant. 1564. 3. Pet. Lombardus in omnes Pauli Epistolas he writ before Transubstantiation Opinionis Potentum Prodigium was decreed in the Lateran Council 1215. And in many things honest Peter is no Papist 4. Dionysius Carthusianus in omnes Pauli Epist and many other c. 5. Arias Montanus in omnes Apostolorum Epistolas Apoc. For the better understanding of the Scriptures it will be convenient to know and when occasion to consult such Books as have given general directions for studying Scriptures and particular explications of the Jewish Antiquities c. such as these Apparatus ad Scripturas intelligendas 1. Antiquitatum Judaicarum libri 9. per Ariam Montanum Lug. Bat. 1593. Quarto 2. Buxtorfii Tiberias seu Commentarius Historicus didacticus Criticus ad Illustrationem Operis Biblici Bas 1620. Fol. 3. Andr. Riveti Isagoge seu Introductio ad Scripturam sacram Vet. N. Test. Lugd. Bat. 1627. 4. Ant. Possevini Apparatus ad Studia Scripturae Theologiae Scholasticae practicoe Ferrariae 1609. Quarto 5. Ejusdem Bibliotheca selecta dicta Bibliothecae Lib. 2. 3. Colon. Agrip. 1607. Fol. There are many such more Bibliotheca Studiosi Theologiae per Gilb. Voetium Ultrajecti 1651. lib. 2. sect 2. p. 841. de Apparatu Theologico Hen. Hollingeri Clavis Scripturae seu Thesaurus Philologicus Tiguri 1649. Quarto De Canone Scripturae 12. Seeing Controversies there are concerning the Canon of Scripture some Books being Canonical to some which to others are Apocryphal it will be convenient to have some who have writ ex professo on that Subject such as 1. Joh. Rainolds de Lib. Apoc. Tom. 12. sent 4. Oppenheim 1611. There are many Controversies learnedly discussed obiter in these two Volumes besides those about the Canon 2. The Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture by Dr. Cosin late Bishop of Durham Lond. 1657. 3. Hen. Limmichii vindicatio Librorum Apoc. 1638. 8 o. 4. Consulendi sunt cum opus fuerit Scriptores irestici Pontificii Reformati qui Controversiam de Canone Biblico tractant quales sunt Chemnitius in Exam. Concil Trident. Dan. Chamier Panstrat Cath. Tom. 10. Andr. Rivetus Catholici Orthodoxi Tom. 1. Tract 1. de Sacra Scriprura Bellarm Tom. 1. Controv. 1 de Verbo Dei G. Amesius contra Bellarminum Vetus Erbormannus Jesuita in suâ pro Bellarm. Replicâ contra Amesium Herbipoli 1661. 5. It will be convenient also to consult what the Antient Fathers and Canons of Council determine concerning the Canon of Scripture As 1. Canon Apostol 85.9 apud Balsamonem pag. 278. apud Zonaram Canon 88. p. 42. Dionysius Exiguus 1. Collector Can. Antiquissimus Apostolorum Canones 5. Tantum habet Spurius ideo est hic Can. 85. Vet. 84 c. 2. Canon Concilii Laodiceni 59. apud Justellum in Cod. Can. Eccles Vniversae Can. 163. seu ultimus 3. Canon 47. Concilii Carthag 3. apud Joverium Conciliorum part 2. p. 19. Col. secunda in Conciliis per Labbe Par. 1671. Tom. 2. 1177. But
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
Homily against the peril of Idolatry in the second Tome of our Homilies p. 11 12 c. our (b) See the last Rubrick at the end of the Communion in our present Liturgy and we have the same Rubrick in the same place in the second Liturgy of E. 6. Printed Anno 1552. Liturgy c. to which we may add the Canons of the Convocation in the year 1640. which however not confirm'd by Parliament yet by them 't is evident that the Clergy met in that National Synod declared Rome to be Idolatrous and grosly Superstitious in the seventh Canon And the truth of this were it the business of this Letter might evidently appear to omit other things by that adoration their Church gives to the Eucharistical (c) Vid. Concil Trident. Sess 13. de Eucharistia cap 5. Host after Consecration in the Sacrament and to the Cross (d) Vid. Pontificale Romanum Romae 1611. pag. 480. de ordine accipiend procession for to both these they give Latria which they themselves confess is due to God only and therefore must of necessity be gross Idolatry 4. And as the Church of the Jews in the ten Tribes and the Church of Rome now agree in this that the one was and the other is Idolatrous so as in the Church of the ten Tribes there were 7000 who kept themselves pure from Idolatry even then when Idolatry under Jeroboam and his Successors was the publick and received worship So in the Church of Rome now I doubt not but there may be and are many more thousands who in Spain Italy c. live in the Church of Rome and in external communion with it and yet do not communicate with her in her Idolatry and Antichristianism And these not only I but all Protestant Divines generally call the Invisible and true Church of Christ known to him though not appearing to the World to be such But for the Visible Church of Rome That is the Pope and his Adherents Clergy and Laity who acknowledge him Christs Vicar and Supream Head of the whole Christian Church who believe and profess the whole Doctrine of the Roman (e) The Popish Doctrine in which Popery property consists as it is different from truth and the â—hurch of England is summarily comprehended in their new Tâ—ent Creed published by Pope Pius 4. and is in some Editions of the Tâ—ent Council at the end of that Council So in the Edition of the Trent Council by Labbe Paris 1667. p. 224 225. in other Editions it is put into the Body of the Council So in the Edition of that Council at Antwerp 1633. we have that Creed Sess 24. de reformatione p. 450 451. in which Creed we have 12. new Articles comprehending their Popish Doctrine propâ—rly so called added to the ancient Creed of Constantinople which we receive and is the Creed used by our Church at the Communion Church and practise the Superstitious and Idolatrous ways of Worship approved and received by that Church these are no true Church of God but an Idolatrous and Antichristian Synagogue Objectio But it may be said that Protestant Divines generally say that Salvation may be had in the Church of Rome and therefore it seems to be a true Church of Christ a true Christian Church and therefore it cannot be an Idolatrous and Antichristian Synagogue in which no Salvation can possibly be had And therefore some of our Divines as Mr. Thorndike deny the Church of Rome to be Idolatrous others which I shall not name say that she is guilty of Material but not Formal Idolatry Solutio To this Objection I say in short 1. That 't is true our learned and pious Divines do usually grant that Salvation may be had in the Church of Rome 2. For what Mr. Thorndike in his Weights and Measures has said That the Church of Rome is not guilty of Idolatry it is only gratis dictum but no way proved And besides he denies that truth which the Church of England had affirm'd and he himself subscribed 3. For those who talk of Material Idolatry it is absolute non-sense For although in actual sins of Commission as in Idolatry Murther Adultery c. there be materiale peccati the act it self and formale peccati the obliquity of that act yet forma dat nomen esse there neither is nor can be any Idolatry Murder or Adultery without the form and obliquity of those Acts. So in a Man the Body is materiale Hominis and the Soul is formalis pars But no Man ever called a Dead Corps though it be Materialis pars the material part a Material Man it being evident that a Dead Corps is no Man at all So to call the Act which is the material part of Idolatry Material Idolatry is not sense for without the obliquity of the act which is the form 't is no Idolatry at all 4. When Protestant Divines say that Salvation may be had in the Church of Rome their meaning neither is nor without they deny their own Principles can be that those who live and dye in the Profession and Practice of the Popish Religion can be saved They say and prove that Popery is such a Mass of Errors Superstition and abominable Idolatry as cannot consist with Salvation For (a) 1 Cor. 6.9 Rev. 21.8 Idolatry (b) Rev. 14.9 10. Antichristianism were declared to be damnable when till Death persisted in But they say as there were seven thousand in the Idolatrous Church of the Ten Tribes who kept themselves from the pollution of Idols So they doubt not but there may be in the Church of Rome in the external Communion of that Church many thousands For the opinion of Protestant Divines concerniâ—g Salvation of Papists s e Mr. Chillingworth's answer to the Jesuit Father Knott cap. 7 8 17 c. p. 397 c. and Dr. Featly's Defence of Sir Humphrey Iâ—nds Vâ—a recta Lond. 1638. p. 148. in Alphabeto 3. Iâ—â—ius libri who by the Grace of God are kept from Communicating with that Church in her Idolatry and Antichristianism And these may obtain Salvation 5. They say that there are two things which may be to some who live in the Communion of the Church of Rome helps and remedies to serve them against the pernicious effects of Popery so that although it be in it self damnable yet it shall not be so to them And those helps are 1. True Repentance for that is Secunda Tabula post naufragium so that if they truely repent as I hope many of that Church does though they do not profess it and really forsake their Popish Superstitions and Idolatry they shall surely find pardon for their former sins which shall * Ezek. 33.15 16. never be laid to their charge and so for our Blessed Saviour's sake Salvation But unless they keep themselves pure from those pollutions or if not sincerely repent they neither have nor can have any well grounded hope or possibility to attain
1200 years that by vertue of that Decree of the Apostles it was believed unlawful to eat any blood But here it will be objected that the Apostles Decree Act. 15. was not Praeceptum or a Law or bound all the Gentile Christians from eating blood c. but it was only Consilium a Counsel which did not induce a necessary Obligation to obedience so amongst others (a) Dr. Hamond in Acts 15 28 29 and hâ—â— Review pag. 95. Dr. Hamond Solut. But this is gratis dictum without reason given or pretended to be given for it and therefore till it be prov'd eâdem facilitate negatur quâ proponitur but that the Canon of the Apostles is Praeceptum an obliging Law and not barely a Counsel which without any disobedience we may receive or reject may appear by these and other Reasons 1. 'T is most certain that Voluntas Dei de re faciendâ aut fugiendâ sufficienter revelata is a Divine Precept and a binding Law his Will when sufficiently reveal'd is the adequate Rule of his Worship and our Obedience and when it appears that 't is the Will of God we should do this or avoid that we are bound to obey and do accordingly Now in the Apostles Canon or Decree we have the express Will of God sufficiently reveal'd that we should abstain from things offered to Idols and from blood for so the Apostle who had the infallible Assistance of the Holy Spirit tells us it seem'd good to the Holy Ghost and us that you abstain from Idolatry and from Blood c. It was the Will of God and therefore a Divine Law and Precept that we should abstain 2. Consilium is not necessarium but voluntarium we may without any disobedience receive or reject Counsel but the things forbid in the Apostles Canon are said to be necessaria though as to other things they were left at liberty yet there was a nessity to abstain from Idolatry and from Blood 3. A Counsel or things advised to in it are not onus impositum it never does nor can impose any burden upon me seeing I may ad placitum pro Arbitrio receive or reject follow or refuse the Counsel and do or not do what is Counsell'd but the Apostle's Canon is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onus impositum a burden laid upon them by the Holy Ghost and the Apostles It seem'd good to the Holy Ghost to lay this burden upon you c. and therefore not only counsell'd but by a Divine Law bound to obey it 4. Once more This Canon of the Apostles is so far from being only a Consilium or advice of that great and infallible Counsel that in the sacred Text 't is expresly call'd a Decree or Apostolical Constitution (a) Act. 16.4 which the Gentile Christians were to observe and keep so Saint Luke tells us that they that were sent to deliver that Apostolical Canon to the Gentiles passed through the Cities and delivered them the Decrees for to keep which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordained or constituted by the Apostles I know the word in the Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render Decrees sometimes signifies only an Opinion but never in St. Luke who uses it to signifie an Imperial Decree (b) Luk. 2.1 Edict or Institution so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not the Opinion or Counsel but the Imperial Edict of Caesar So elsewhere Act. 17.7 c. T. B. Ep. Line A Letter Answering a Question about the Temper of the Prophets when they Prophesied and likewise a Query about the Tridentine Creed Sir FOR your two Queries I say to the First That the Holy Prophets Anciently when they foretold blessings or great judgments to come upon any person or Nation they were of a sedate calm and quiet temper and not troubled with defective sits of anger and overflowing passion For it was not of themselves or their own minds they spoke but they were (a) 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost by the Spirit of (b) 1 Pet. 10.11 Christ which was in them Now that Holy Spirit was a Sanctifying Spirit which could and did regulate all their passions and by his grace and the Divine truths he revealed to them inabled them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to (c) 2 Tim. 3.17 every good Work And if you consider all the Prophets in the Old Testament Moses Elijah Elisha Daniel c. you shall find them without mixing their own Passions calmly denouncing Gods severe anger and judgments against wicked Men or Nations 'T is true your Pagan Prophets and Diviners who at Delphos and such other places where the Devil gave Oracles took upon them to Prophesie and foretel future things were usually when they Prophesied rapt into a fury and kind of Madness And hence it is that amongst sober Pagan Authors Vaticinari is taken for delirare Quia sacerdotes oracula reddituri furore quodam corripi solebant Hence Cicero (d) Cicero pro Sextio eos qui dicerent dignitati serviendum Vaticinari insanire dicebat And elsewhere (e) Cicero lib. 1. de Divinatione Vaticinari furor vera solet For your 2. Query you desire to know when that Professio fidei mention'd in a Book call'd The Acts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy c. was agreed upon and what Books writ of it In Answer to this Query you must know That the Professio fidei mention'd in that Book was by Pius Papa IV. first Published Anno. 1564. in his Bulls which has this Title Bulla Pii Papae 4. super forma Juramenti Professionis Fidei In this Bull you have that whole Professio fidei or their New Trent Creed as we justly call it and that Bull and the Professio fidei or Trent Creed occurrs usually at the end of their Trent Council and at the end of their Catechismus Romanus and in some Editions of their Trent Council you have it in the (f) In the Edition at Antwerp 1633. Sess 24. De Reformatione cap. 12. pag. 430. you have this Professio fidei body of the Council Now concerning this Professio fidei (g) It was not made or composed by the French Clergy but by the direction of the Trent Fathers and Pulish'd by Pope Pius 4. Anno. 1564. they mention you must know that it consists of two parts 1. The Constantinopolitan Creed which is the very same with that in our Liturgy at the Communion And this we believe as much and as well as they 2. Then they have added to this and make up as one Creed more then twice as much in 14. or 15. Articles every one of which is evidently Erroneous and many of them impiously Superstitious and Idolatrous And this second part of their Professio fidei is that we call their New Trent Creed For 't is most certain that no Church in the Christian World no not Rome her self ever did believe
enquiry about it among some of the King's Ministers and among some of the persons employ'd in taking it found it was taken well as to the number of the Papists but short as to the number of the Non-conformists and as to its being taken thus to the Number of the Papists the Reader may be referred to Dr. Glanvil the Author of the Book call'd The Zealous and Impartial Protestant Shewing some great but less heeded Dangers of Popery Printed in London in the Year 1681. and wherein p. 46 he saith I shall consider one great Instance which is mens multiplying the numbers of Papists beyond all bounds of truth c. People are apt to talk of the numbers and strengh of Papists and no doubt design them not any service by it c. whereas did they know how inconsiderable their real numbers are they must certainly sit down and be quiet They would then understand that their business is unpracticable Private Persons would be discouraged and if there should succeed a Prince of their Religion in all probability he also would despond and never think of attempting a thing humanely speaking so impossible a thing the endeavouring which would certainly tear all in pieces Religion Government and all And what the late Designs have done towards it we all sadly see Therefore that they may see their Designs are Madness and that they ought to despair of ever succeeding by their strength we should let them know that they have abused themselves and others have abused them by false Musters In the year 1676 7. Orders came from the Arch-bishop to the several Bishops and from them to the respective Ministers and Church-Wardens in the Province of Canterbury to enquire carefully and to return an account of the distinct numbers of Conformists Protestant Nonconformists and Papists in their several Parishes viz. of all such Men and Women that were of age to communicate I have by me the return from the whole Province which contains all England and Wales excepting only what belongs to four of the 25 Bishopricks The number of Papists there return'd was but eleven thousand eight hundred and seventy Men and Women old and young Now though in this account Conformists and other Non-conformists were not so distinctly could not so justly be reckon'd yet for the Papists they being so few in each Parish and so notoriously distinguish'd as generally they are the Ministers and Church-Wardens could easily give account of them and there is no reason to suspect their Partiality We hear I know that in London alone and in some particular Parishes of that and the neighbour City there are vastly great numbers But within the Walls they are known to be very few comparatively scarce any such In the Suburbs they are said to be numerous still the great numbers are in places remote or where inquiry cannot be well made In St. Martins alone I have hear'd of twenty or thirty thousand but the Account was taken there and as exact a one as could be And I am assured by some that should know and had no reason to misinform me that the number return'd upon the most careful scrutiny was about six hundred Of Lodgers there might be more but they are supposed to be accounted elsewhere in the several Parishes to which they belong I have found the like fallings short of the reputed number in divers other noted places In one City talk'd of for Papists as if half the Inhabitants were such I am assured there are not twenty Men and Women In another large and populous one a Person of Quality living in it told me there were at least six hundred but when the enquiry was made by the Ministers and Church-Wardens of each Parish that number was not found to be sixty And 't is very probable such a disproportion would be met between the reputed and real number in all other places if scrutiny were made In all the West and most populous parts of England they are very inconsiderable I hear frequently from Inhabitants of those places that in Bristol the second or third City of England there is but one and in the City of Glocester one more or two at most In the other great Towns and Cities Westward scarce any and those that are in the Counties at large are extremely few thinly scattered here one and at the distance of many Miles it may be another some few decay'd Gentry and here and there an inconsiderable Countrey-man or Trades-man very few of Note or Riches of either sort And if an exact account were taken of their Number and Conditions from London to the Mount in Cornwell Westward the inconsiderableness of both would exceedingly surprize us And I am very confident that of all sorts of men differing from the Church of England in that Kingdom the Papists are the fewest and those that are are so scatter'd and live so distantly from each other that 't is really very little they are capable of doing in opposition to the rest of the Nation and the less because of the great jealousy and hatred that all universally have conceived of and against them We hear of vast numbers in the North and there are more no doubt in those parts than in the Western but I believe they are much fewer than we hear and no way able by their numbers to make any kind of ballance for the exceeding disproportion in the West The truth is people are mightily given and generally so to multiply the number of Papists and they do it in common Talk at least ten fold Designs have been and I doubt are still carrying on which this Pretence serves A chief thing to be done in order to publick Mischief is to affright the people with the number and strength of Papists And I believe if there were but ten of that sort in the Nation it would be the same thing Thus far Dr. Glanvil But the Doctor 's Notion of the inconsiderableness of the Papists power to overthrow our Religion and Laws by force of Arms may thus for the satisfaction of the Reader be corroborated by Calculation There being every where as many under the Age of 16 as above it it makes the total of the Papists in the Province of Canterbury about 23000 The Province of York bears a sixth part of the Taxes and hath in it a sixth part of the people that the Province of Canterbury hath A sixth part of 23000 is 3500 which added to 23000 the Papists in England will be 27000. Half of these is under the Age of sixteen which may be supposed to be 14000. A 7th part of these which is 4000 are aged and above 60. So then taking out of their number 18000 there remains 9000 a third part of their number who are between 16 and 60 and of which one half are Women There remains therefore of Papists in England fit to bear Arms 4500 quod erat demonstrandum It is observ'd that in Glamorganshire Radnor Brecknock there is but one Popish Family
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
dubious 2. And further 't is evident that we neither have nor without some new Divine revelation can have any infallible means to know that a General Council is Infallible For 1. Scripture never so much as names a General Council much less says it is Infallible 2. Nor does it legally tell us who can call it 3. Nor who must chuse Representatives or how many or what power they can give them 4. Nor when they are called Commissioned and come whether all must concurr to make an Infallible Decree or the Major part of Votes will be sufficient 5. Nor what means they must use to make their Decree certain and infallible or whether they shall be infallible in their definitions whether they be good or impious persons whether they use good means to find out the truth or none at all I say 't is evident that neither our Blessed Saviour nor his Apostles have assured us of any of these in Scripture nor any acknowledg'd General Council since ever defin'd Synodically and declared a General Council to be Infallible And therefore we have just reason to say that it is irrational to perswade Men there is an Infallible Guide and that a General Council on whose Judgment we may with certainty and undoubtedly rely when there is neither Scripture nor General Council and therefore no infallible means for universal and uninterrupted Tradition neither is nor can be pretended to nor indeed any thing else to prove a General Council to be infallible He who thinks otherwise let him shew me any place in Scripture or Canon of any legitimate General Council to prove what he says and if I cannot make it appear to any impartial Judge that 't is impertinent and his reason from it inconsequent he shall have my hearty thanks and subscription to his opinion if so proved For I should count him no less then a Mad man at least highly irrational who travelling towards Heaven would refuse an infallible Guide to bring him thither if he could be assured there were such an one And he is little wiser who without such assurance follows any who pretends to what he cannot prove 3. 3. Not necessary There is no necessity of such a pretended Eternal Guide Our Blessed Saviour who is the (a) Rev. 15.3 King of Saints and (b) Eph. 5.23 head of his Church governs and directs it with his Holy word the Scriptures (c) Externâ— per verbum interne per spiritum Aquinas without and his holy Spirit within nor is there or can be any true Member of his Church and Mystical Body which has not his holy (a) Rom. 8.9 Spirit to direct and comfort it His holy word is fidei morum Regula an Infallible Rule of our actions and belief and his Spirit where really it is and it is really in every Member of his Mystical Body is an internal Principle which enlightens the understanding of all in whom it is and sanctifies their will and affections and enables them to believe and obey the truth Whence it is that every pious person and Member of the true Church of Christ is said to be (b) Joh. 6.45 taught of God and our Blessed Saviour has promised that all such shall understand and (c) Joh. 7.17 8.32 know the truth of the Scriptures This means our blessed Saviour and his Apostles left in the Church and it was and still is sufficient for Salvation without any General Council for an infallible Guide That it was sufficient for 325 years after Christ is undeniably evident thus 1. It is certain and on all sides confess'd that there was no General Council in the world 'till the first Nicene-Council which was in the year 325. I ask then were the Primitive Christians saved in that 325 years when there was no General Council to guide them infallibly or were they not If you say they were not saved then your Roman Martyrologie all your Missals and Breviaries are manifestly false and your Church errs in all which are hundreds of Martys and Saints acknowledged and in your Sacred Offices Prayers made to them which if they were neither Saints nor Saved were not only erroneous but highly impious And if you say that they were saved in those 325 years when they had no General Council to guide them infallibly as of necessity you ought and must say then say I that Christians might have had Salvation if no General Council had ever been For there neither is any reason nor can any be given why Christians should have more need of an infallible Guide in the following than they had in the first Ages And therefore if there was no necessity of an infallible Guide then there will be none now but as they were so we may be saved without one If iâ— be said that the many Heresies whiâ—â— arose in after Ages made an Infallible Guide a General Council more necessary it will be reply'd with evident truth that there were more wild Heresies in those first Ages we now speak of than in any since as will be manifest to any who seriously read and impartially consider the Writings of those Ancient (a) Such as Iraeneus Epiphanius Augustine Theodoret Philâ—stinus c. Fathers who have given us just Catalogues of the Hereticks and Heresies of those first Ages And therefore if those Primitive Christians for 325 years notwithstanding all the Heresies in their times were for Zeal and Piety excellent Persons Saints and Martyrs without any infallible Guide so might we too if we should do as they did that is diligently read the Scriptures believe and obey them exercising all those acts of Piety towards God and Charity towards our Neighbours which are there clearly enough required of us so that there is now no necessity of an infallible Guide which without any proof is vainly pretended to 4. Nor ever was there any General Council 4. And we say further that there never was any Council in the World such as is pretended to be infallible which was truly General Oecumenical For 1. It is and must be confessed that a General Council truly and properly so called and none else is pretended to be infallible must consist of the Representatives of the whole Christian World 2. It is also certain and evident that the Representatives of a very great if not the greater part of the Christian World were never called or sent or came to any Council which has been held any where since the Apostles times I mean none out of Aethopia Persia India c. were either called or came to any of those Councils which hitherto have been held as is manifest by their Subscriptions and yet all Histories agree that the Gospel was Preached and Christians planted in those Countries So that the greatest Councils we have yet had are only Imperial not truly General call'd by the Roman Emperours and consisting of Bishops within their jurisdiction If it be said that both Protestants and Papists call the
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