THE Genuine Remains OF That Learned Prelate Dr. Thomas Barlow, LATE Lord Bishop of Lincoln.  
Containing divers Discourses Theological, Philosophical, Historical, etc.  
In LETTERS to several Persons of Honour and Quality.  
To which is added the Resolution of many Abstruse Points.  
As also Directions to a Young Divine for his Study of Divinity, and choice of Books, etc. With great variety of other Subjects.  
Published from his Lordship's Original Papers.  
LONDON, Printed for john Dunton, at the Raven in the Poultry, 1693.   

The Epistle to the READER.  
THE Reader may be pleased to take notice that the Work of Bp. Barlow, which leads the Van in the following Collection, namely, Directions to a Young Divine for his Study of Divinity, etc. is what his Lordship employed his great studious thoughts in preparing and polishing, during several distant times of his Life. He gave me a Copy of his Manuscript on that Subject not long after the Year 1650. and he gave the Minister of Buckden a Copy of the following Work of that Subject, containing many additions and alterations, and writ with the hand of one of his Lordship's amanuensis, after he was Bishop of Lincoln, and wherein many Books Printed after the Year 1673 are cited; and the which Copy gins in p. 1. and ends in the last line of p. 71. And what followeth on the same subject from thence to the end of p. 121. I saw written under the Bishop's own hand, and which he wrote to gratify the request of a particular Friend who had highly obliged him, and who was more than ordinarily Curious in his Study of Theological Matters.  
And as to the following Works of the Bishop in this Volume, that are writ by way of Letter to several Persons, I saw them written under his own hand, and many of them were written to myself, the which containing various matters relating to Ecclesiastical Law and History, and points of Divinity so instructful both to Divines, Lawyers, and Historians, (and wherein he had shown such a complete Mastery of all that knowledge in himself, that he had recommended the pursuit of to young Divines). I thought the publication thereof could not be omitted without injury to the World, and bereaving the memory of so Learned a Prelate of such lasting Monuments of Praise, as these his Works have erected for it.  
Nor are any Learned Works more grateful to Critical Readers than such as are Comprised in the way of Epistles, and as hath appeared by the reception the World hath given to the Praestantium ac eruditorum virorum Epistolae Ecclesiasticae & Theologicae, Printed 1684. and among which are about 69 of such Letters of Grotius.  
The truth is, that as the first Painted draughts or dead-coloured Paintings of men's Pictures by Great Masters, seem to have more of likeness than those in the following sit when their Pencils are applied to the most curious polishing touches; so doth the first draught of the thoughts of an Author, and such as at once finished up, are to pass from him in a Letter, strike the Eye more with the appearance of the likeness of his Soul and genius, than do the following productions of his Mind, in which Art is exerting itself with variety of labour, and with its colours and shadowings doth often rather hid than illustrate nature.  
Moreover, the entertainment of the Reader in the following Volume is carefully provided for by the abridgement of some of the Bishop's Discourses and Determinations of Questions, the which if Published at length, would not have possibly been so agreeable. For as short Voyages are most pleasing, so are those passages of men's minds from one subject to another; and when they are not overlong detained by old from new matter.  
We know there was lately a Conjuncture of time, when, tho' several Subjects were dished up from the Press, yet men chose to feed only on that which was about Popery, and had no gusto for any other matter, yet now being cloyed with that, the Reader will find here such variety of matter to feast his mind with, that may keep his appetite from being palled with any one subject whatsoever.  
But as I account that there was no subject the Bishop ever writ of but what fared the better by him, and was rendered by his opening it more acceptable to men's understandings, so I judge that there is one great excellency of his Lordships managing of Controversy, very Conspicuous in his Discourses in this Volume; wherein his example may be usefully directive not only to Young Divines, but to Writers of most mature years and judgements, and that is his great Talon of stating of Questions with exquisite Care and Skill. I ever thought a Question so stated to be half decided. And as in Amsterdam the laying of the foundation of any House requires as much Labour and Cost as the whole Superstructure; so doth the just founding of any Question by the stating of it, take up as much time from an Author, as the Conclusions he builds upon it.  
I have happened to provide for the Readers being entertained with the greater variety in this Volume by my having been in a manner e●forc'd (tho' briefly) to insert therein somewhat of my writing to the Bishop of two or three Subjects, with an intent by such a Foil to set off the lustre of the Bishop's thoughts on the same subject, and particularly in p. 273, and from thence toward the end of p. 278. (and of the which I shall have occasion to say more when I take leave of the Reader) and in p. 316, 320. and from thence to the end of p. 326.  
After the Bishops Survey of the Numbers of the Papists, and of those of other Persuasions in Religion, taken in the year 1676. (and which hath not before appeared in Print) I thought fit in pag. 320. to corroborate Dr. Glanvile's assertion of the inconsiderableness of the number of the Papists, by Calculation; and I have in the following Pages mentioned other Political Calculations, that I adventured upon, the which I submit to the Censure of the Critical Few, who mind things of that Nature, The great difficulty of making such Calculations exactly well, hath deterred many from attempting it; and indeed the performance of it as well as it should be, is the height of humane Wisdom in the Political Conduct of the World. But if what I have published here and elsewhere of that kind, may occasionally excite others of greater abilities to advance that kind of Knowledge, to do so, I have my end.  
And here on a Passant review of what in p. 324, 325, 326. I wrote to the Bp. concerning the L. Falkland, who was Secretary to K. Charles I. I have no occasion to fear the attacques of any Critical Person, as if I had been a Super-laudator in the Case of his Lordship, and on which account Mr. Marvel doth justly animadvert on Dr. Parker, as being extravagant and excessive in praising Archbishop Bramhal, and for saying that he was fit to Command the Roman Empire, when in its greatest extent; and whereupon Mr. Marvel hath a judicious remark on the danger of giving immoderate Praise. I am not so vain as to apply the Tu regere imperio Populos, &c to that Lords great Character. But yet reflecting on his incomparable abilities as a Minister of State, and his drawing the long Declaration of the 12th of August 1642. will say, that he had Talents adequate to the employment of Principal Secretary to the greatest Roman Emperor that ever gave Law to the World. And the Bp. of Lincoln's Letter in return to mine, sufficiently shows the great Figure that Lord made in the Intellectual World, insomuch that it giveth us the Figure of his Lordship, as of such a Gamaliel, at whose Feet Mr. Chillingworth and his glorious Book, were in some sort bred up.  
I doubt not but when that the L. Secretary's Works that have been long out of Print (and many of which were Printed at first in the way of Pamphlets) shall be in one volume reprinted, and give the World in one Prospect, the view of the productions of the Author's great fancy, judgement, and wit, and of such perfections, as Huart tells us in his Trial of Wits, that the excelling therein requires different temperaments of the Brain, our English World will receive them with a great and just veneration; & perhaps some ingenious Foreigners who have here been Refugees, understanding both English and French, may for the honour of our Nation translate them into French, and let our proud neighbours, who value themselves on the sharpness of their Wits, as well as of their Swords, see, that our Climate hath bred a Writer in Prose with so much depth of Judgement and height of Wit, as hath at least equalled if not transcended any one among them.  
And for the honour of our Country, I may here further occasionally say, that as when long ago School-divinity was the Learning in vogue in the World, some of our English Wits appeared as First-rate Writers of the subtleties in it; so I think there was never any performance in that Learning more ingenious than that of our Bishop, in his first Exercitation, which is here made English.  
But there is another sort of Learning, of which the World abroad hath produced many voluminous Writers, I mean of Casuistical Divinity, wherein the Writings of our Bishops, Sanderson and Barlow are Superior to them in weight, however not in number.  
And I believe a discussion of any one Case of Conscience, with such variety of Learning as is contained in Bp. Barlow's Treatise of Mr. Cottingtons' Marriage-Case formerly Printed, is not to be found in the Works of any Foreign Casuists.  
There is in the following Collection one Letter of the Bp. relating to that Subject, which was not before Printed, and it is in p. 216. (and where the Printer should have Printed the name of Cottington instead of Collington) and writ on the occasion of his Lordships having been informed that the Dean of the Arches founded the Merits of his Sentence in the case, on his belief that our Ecclesiastical Judges here could not question the validity of the Sentences of Ecclesiastical Judges in Foreign parts: and which may be proper for any one to have, who hath what of the Bishops was formerly Printed of that Subject.  
I remember the Bp. once ask me what I thought moved the Dean of the Arches so to think and judge in the Case; I told him, I thought it was a Notion he had of a Communion of Rights, between the several Churches here and abroad, and of the Law and Practice of Nations, obliging Judges of several Countries implicitly to allow one another's Sentences as good, without questioning their merits as to internal Justice: and whereupon his Lordship knowing that the course of my life had led me to consider the Law and Practice of Nations, more particularly than that of his had done, he was pleased to lay his commands on me, to send him my thoughts of the same in the Case; and which I did at large, and he was pleased to tell me he thought the publication of them useful. But tho' I thought not so then, and therefore omitted it; yet I since finding that the Judgement of the Dean of the Arches in the Case, hath to this day obtained the Vogue of a Ruled Case, and as such to be often cited in our Courts of Law, I shall on that account perhaps shortly publish the same to prevent the growth of a popular error; and am encouraged so to do by so many of the Writings of the Bp. and other Casuists, and the argumentative opinions given by several Civilians in the Case, having passed off in Print; and do suppose that new matter of the same subject may not be unwelcome to the World.  
I had lately just occasion given me to mention the Bp. and others, as having adorned our Country in the view of the World, and I must now take occasion, as I look over the Contents of the Letters of the Bishop here, (the which were obtained from several persons to whom they were writ) and cast my Eye on his Lordship's Letter to Sir J. B. wherein he passes his Censure on the definitions in a Lecture before the Royal Society, to say that the Author of that Lecture was one of the greatest Philosophers our Age hath bred, and one whom I have elsewhere called a Mathematical Statesman, and one who I believe hath in various kinds of the eruditio recondita exceeded any one of the Virtuosos in Italy, or beaus esprits in France; however yet his haste made him not to take the Scales of Genus and differentia into his hands as he should have done, when he gave his definitions; and by which omission the definitions are justly liable to the Bishop's Censure. And there was another definition in the Lecture, as liable to Censure as any, and in which that great man, aliquid humani passus est, that is to say, did err, and it is where he defines Right to be the Image of possession, and which none need refute. And therefore the consideration of this may represent to us, the profound Wisdom that is in that Rule of Law in the digests, Omnis definitio in jure Civili periculosa est, parum est enim ut non subverti possit.  
There is a Letter of the Bp. to Mr. R. S. p. 181. wherein his Lordship Censures the Oxford Antiquities, and another to the same person on the same subject, pag. 183, and 184. and where his Lordship mentions the Compiler of them as too favourable to Papists.  
I have not observed him so to be in others of his Learned and Loyal Writings, and as for that Work of the Oxford Antiquities, I was informed that there was at Christ-Church without the privity of that Compiler, such a low poor diminishing Character of the Talents of Bishop Wilkins there inserted, as made me averse from reading the Book.  
That Bishop was an Ornament both of that University and the English Nation, and one who adorned the Gospel itself by his great Intellectual and Moral Endomments: And it was for his Honour that the Giver of his Character had not a Soul large enough to be able to comprehend the Idea of his great Genius. Like him mentioned by my Lord Bacon, for having cut out his whole Estate into Obligations, this Bishop dealt so in the Expense of the greatest part of his time; and his Soul was so continually in travel with the good of the World in general, and of his Friends in particular, that the little design to lessen his Character cannot escape Animadversion, and the vanity of attempting it in that Person of Christ-Church, seemed to me the more nauseous, because I was present with that Bishop in Oxford, when he made it his particular Request to Cromwell's Major-General, not to banish that Person from Oxford; and therein prevailed with him, notwithstanding the Applications that had been made to him for it by Dr. Owen, and by the Presbyterian Heads of Houses.  
But as Aristotle hath given his Judgement, That as to men of Heroic Qualities not praise, but pronouncing them blessed is due, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So was Bishop Wilkins so great a Blessing to our Age, that his Memory claims the being blessed by our English World. And it is as needless to praise him, as to gild Gold; and as needless too, to fear that his just Character can be deleted in men's minds, as that Gold can perish; it being more easy to make Gold than to destroy it.  
But it is time for me to take my leave of the Reader; and I shall here so far consult his necessary Information, and the Honour of Bishop Barlow in the following Collection; as to mention it that by the carelessness of the Press so considerable a Mistake hath happened in p. 279. that the Emendation thereof aught to be better provided for, than by Insertions among the Common Errata.  
The Proportion that the Number of the Levites bore as to that of the other Tribes, is far from being an useless Speculation. It may rather be judged to be a very momentous one. Some Sacrilegious Projectors have not been wanting in all Ages. The many Popish Writers beyond Sea writing against Sacrilege, and of the Church Revenues, usually insert this clause in a Parenthesis, concerning those Revenues, viz. (quibus Ribaldi hujus saeculi turpiter inhiant) and to that barbarity of Sacrilege they it seems applied a barbarous Word. And since what hath been may be, it is not imprudent for us in our own Country to lay up in store the best furniture of Arguments we can against the alienation of the Church Revenue: And Precedents relating to the Divine Wisdom appearing in the Oeconomy of God's old peculiar People the Jews, are by all agreed on, as requiring great consideration and deference. And therefore that the Bishop's labour in drawing up the Scheme of the proportion of the Levites with that of the people of the other Tribes in Latin may not be ineffectual; and that the les Scavans beyond Sea may not by the Printers Omissions be deprived of the Information he intended them in that Point: The Reader is desired in p. 279. to insert a Rule between the Numbers 9550 and 22000; and to take notice that the Brace to the first Datus should enclose but two Lines, ending with the Word Numerus.  
The next three Lines are to be taken into that Brace, and the Number set against it thus, 54. 19100./ 22000. In the Third Brace is the like Mistake, and thus it should be, 54 9550./ 11000.  
The Printer hath there printed the Word Dimidum for Dimidium.  
Some other Errata of the Press I observed, as to what concerns matters of Numbers, and quotas by me writ of to the Bishop: For I in my Calculations intending only what the Dutch-Painters call a Schytz, and not a perfect Delineation or Draught, in several places I used the Word [about] where it is omitted by the Press. And in p. 367. (whether by the fault of the Press, or my Amanuensis I know not) there is an omission of the Words [in effect] after 1500 costs in the 5th line before the end of the page. For though the Sentence of the Dean of the Arches very justly condemned the party in Costs, for whom it went, yet that particular Sum I take not to have been mentioned in it, but the Dominus litis informed me how the Council on both sides were agreed about the payment of that Sum to the pars victa, and that it was re verâ paid; and so that effect was the product of the Sentence.  
I conclude to the Reader with a common Ending of Roman Inscriptions I have seen;  Haec volebam nescius ne esses. 
Vale. P. Pett.   

THE CONTENTS.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Or Directions to a Young Divine, for his Study of Divinity, and Choice of Books, etc. Page 1  
De Study Theologiae. ib.  
Commentators on the Old Testament. Page 11  
Commentators on the New Testament Page 13  
Apparatus ad Scripturas intelligendas. Page 17  
De Canone Scripturae. Page 18  
De Patribus Errorum saeculo scriptis, etc. Page 20  
De Scriptis Patrum genuinis, spuriis, etc. Page 22  
Historici Ecclesiastici. Page 26  
Geography. Page 29  
Councils. Page 31  
Schoolmen. Page 40  
What Books, as to our Doctrine and Discipline are authentic, and owned by our Church as such, etc. Page 51  
What are the Erroneous Opinions of the Enemies of our Church, as to Doctrine and Discipline. Page 55  
Writers of Controversies. Page 58  
About the Knowledge of the Canon-Law. Page 62  
Civil-Law. Page 65  
De Indicibus expurgatoriis, or the Roman Inquisitor's Arts. Page 67  
Syllabus quaestionum praecipuarum, quae inter Socinianos', reliquosque Ecclesiae reformatae, simulac Pontificiae Theologos ventilantur. Page 73  
Tota inter Remonstrantes & Contra Remonstrantes Controversia ad Articulos 5. à Theologis passim reducitur. Page 84  
De Controversiis praedictis, melioris notae Scriptores nonnulli, cum occasio se obtulerit, confulendi. Page 89  
The Bishop's Learned Thoughts about the Geneology in St. Matthew. Page 94  
Quod Nullum Concilium sit proprie Oecumenicum. Page 99  
Syllabus provinciarum ex quibus Episcopi in Concilio Niceno convenerant. Page 101  
A Letter to the Reverend Mr. John Goodwin, Minister of God's word in Coleman-Street. Page 122  
An Account by way of Abstract of Mr. John Goodwyn's Book, called the Pagan's Debt and Dowry, etc. Printed at London Anno. 1651. returned by way of Answer to the foregoing Letter of Dr. Barlow. Page 131  
Dr. Barlow having been Anno 1673. Archdea●on of Oxford, and being obliged to communicate to the Clergy of that Diocese the Orders about Catechising, and which his Majesty in that Conjuncture thought fit to have revived, here follows a Deduction of the factum about it in the several Letters that the Affair gave occasion for. Page 142  
Sir J. B. having sent to Bishop Barlow a Lecture before the Royal Society on the 26th of November, 1674. Printed in Twelves, his Lordship sent him the following Answer. Page 151  
Another Letter to Sir J. B. Page 157  
Of Coadjutors to Bishops. Page 160  
Of the Original of Sine Cures, etc. Page 164  
Of Pensions paid out of Church Live, etc. Page 171  
Another Letter of Annates, etc. Page 177  
A Letter of the vast Subsidy given by the Clergy to Hen. VIII. Page 179  
A Letter to Mr. R. S. about Mr. Wood's Antiquities of the University of Oxford. Page 181  
Another to Mr. R. S. about the same subject. Page 183  
Some Quotations out of Bish p Barlow s Answer to Mr. Hobb's Book of Heresy, wherein is proved the Papists gross hypocrisy, in the putting Heretics to Death. Page 185  
A Letter to Mr. R. T. concerning the Canon-Law allowing the whipping of Heretics as practised by Bishop Bonner at his House at Fulham. Page 189  
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. Page 190  
A Letter to another person about Worshipping the Host being formal Idolatry: and about famous Protestant Divines, holding it lawful to punish Heretics with death. Page 202  
A Letter about what Greek Fathers and Councils were not translated into Latin, before the time of the Reformation. Page 206  
A Letter concerning the King's being empowered to make a Layman his Vicar General. Page 214  
A Letter concerning the allowance and respect that the sentences of Protestant Bishops may expect from Popish ones; writ by way of Answer to a Friend of Mr. Cottington's, who acquainted the Bishop that the Court of Arches here, was of Opinion that the Sentence of the Archbishop of Turin could not here be questioned, by reason of the practice of Popish and Protestant Bishops allowing each other Sentences. Page 216  
A Letter concerning Historical Passages in the Papacy, and of the Question whether the Turk or Pope be the greater Antichrist. Page 224  
The Bishop's Thoughts about 1. When the famous Prophetical Passage in Hooker might have its accomplishment, and 2. About the modus of deposing of a King in Poland, the Circumstances of which it was propable the Bishop was well informed ●n, by his frequent Conversation with some Polonian Noblemen, and Students at Oxford. He returned his Answer to the two Inquiries. Page 231  
The Bishop's Answer to this Question, whether the Famous Saying of Res nolunt male administrari, (of which a Gentleman in London pretends to be the Author) had not its Origine from Aristotle's Metaphysics; to which Venerable Bede, in his Philosophical Axioms refers in his citing the Saying. Page 235  
The Bishop's Letter about Natural Allegiance, and of Kingly Power being from God, and Confuting the Lord Shaftsbury's Speech in the House of Lords for the contrary, etc. Page 237  
A Letter answering some Queries about Abby-Lands, and about the Opinions of Calvin and Luther, of the Punishing of Heretics. Page 240  
The Bishop's Remarks on Bishop Sandersons Fifth Sermon ad Populum. 1 Tim. 4.3, 4, 5. Page 243  
A Letter answering a Question about the temper of the Prophets, when they Prophesied; and likewise a Query about the Tridentine Creed. Page 250  
A Letter of a new Popish Book Published Anno 1684. Page 253  
A Letter to Sir P. P. Apologizing for his not going to Lincoln, and proving that H. 8. his Marrying his Brother's Wife was only against the Judicial Law, and animadverting on Calvin's making the Penal-Laws about Religion given to the Jews, to bind under the Gospel. Page 255  
A Letter about the liberty formerly allowed to the Protestants in France to Print Books there against Popery, etc. Page 260  
A Letter about the French Persecution, and of our King's relieving and protecting the French Refugees; in which Letter the Popish Tenet of the Intention of the Priest, as necessary to the validity of the Sacrament, is confuted. Page 263  
A Letter of somewhat falsely and maliciously brought in, in the body of the Canon-Law. Page 268  
The Bishop's Judgement about the Levitical Revenue, and the proportion between them and the other Tribes. Page 271  
A Letter to Mr. R. T. concerning the Confirmation of the Order of the Jesuits, the numbers of that Order, etc. Page 281  
A Letter censuring the Trent Councils denying the use of the Cup to the Laity in the Eucharist. Page 284  
A Letter charging the Tenet of the Lawfulness of burning Heretical Cities on the Church of Rome. Page 287  
A Letter of Gratian's, falsifying the passage out of Cyprian in the Canon Law, to induce the burning of Heretical Cities, etc. Page 295  
A Lette● to the Earl of Anglesey, of the Council of Trent, not being received in France. Page 302  
Another to the same Person, on the same Subject. Page 309  
The Bishop's Survey of the number of the Papists, etc. Page 312  
A Letter about my L. Falkland, etc. Page 324  
The Substance of the Bishop's Letter to Mr. Isaac Walton, upon his design of writing the Life of Bishop Sanderson. Page 333  
A Letter giving an account of the Bishop and his Clergies Address to K. James. Page 340  
About Mr. Chillingsworth's Peculiar Excellency. Page 344  
A Question about the Case of the Marriage between Mr. C. P. and Mrs. M. C. answered. Page 351  
Biretti's Case, in Bishop Taylor's Ductor Dubitantium. l. 3. ch. 1. Rule 4. Page 358  
The Case of the aforesaid Marriage between Mr. C. P. and Mrs. M. C. by Sir P. P. Page 361  
The Bishop's Judgement in point of Conscience to it. Page 372  
A Letter asserting the King's not being by Scripture prohibited to pardon Murder. Page 374  
An account of Guymenius' Book, Apologizing for the Jesuits Tenets about Morals. Page 378.  
A Letter about the Papists founding Dominion in Grace Page 380  
The substance of a Preface to a Discourse about the Gunpowder Treason, etc. Page 383  
The Substance of a Discourse, confuting Mr. R. Baxter's Tenet in his Saints Everlasting-Rest; that common, or special, and saving-grace differ only gradually. Page 424  
The Bishop's Discourse in Confutation of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome. Page 454  
The Bishop's Exercitation on the Question, whether it is better not to be at all, than to be miserable? Page 469  
An Abstract of the Bishop's Exercitation concerning the Existence of God, if demonstrable by the light of nature. Page 521  
The Bishop's determination of the Question; if the Divine Prescience takes away Contingency? Page 568  
The Bishop's Determination of the Question, whether Election be from Faith foreseen? Page 577  
The Question decided; whether the Fathers under the Old Testament obtained Salvation by the death of Christ? Page 583  
The Question resolved, whether the Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith? Page 594  
The Determination of the Question, if Faith alone doth justify? Page 601  
Of the Supreme Power as to things Sacred as well as Civil. Page 608  
Of the necessity of a Lawful Call to the Ministry. Page 611  
Concerning the unlawfulness of Self-murder. Page 620  
A Discourse of the Bishops proving every Lie to be a sin. Page 625  
The Bishop's 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 publicly 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 Diocese. Page 641    

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. OR, Directions to a young Divine for his Study of Divinity, and choice of Books, etc.  

De Study 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 Patriarches before Moses; for to them the Messiah 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, etc. 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, etc. 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, etc.  
4. Suarez de Legibus.  
5. Azorius Institut. Moralium, Part 3. lib. 1. cap. 1. etc. 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 expressly 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. Scholar 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 itself.  
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 Bible's contradict one another expressly, and in terminis, an hundred times. But it must be remembered, 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 'tis 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 ancient 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 15●0.  calce Evangelii secundum Marcum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. 1590., etc.  
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, etc.  
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, and when used in Scripture.  
2. Lexicons for the meaning and significations of those words; for things being far more than words; hence it is that almost all words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
1. For Concordances we have many, and some very convenient; as these:  
1. For the Hebr. and Chaldee 
(a) Extant Concordant. Hebr. per Mazium. Calasium, Tom. 4. Rom. 1621. in Bodley's Library, W. 2, 6, 7, etc. Jur. much greater than Buxtorf's, but whether better, Docti Judicent.  words too, as many as are in your Bible, Concordantiae Bibliorum Hebr. per Joh. Buxtorf. Basil 1632. There be others, and worse Editions.  
2. For the Hebr. and Gr. of the Old Testament, Conradi Kercheri concordant. Vet. Test. Graecae Hebraeis vocibus respondentes, etc. Francofurti 1607. And it will be convenient to have his Book (explaining the use of his Concordance) de Concordantiarum Biblic. usu per Conrade. Kercherum, Quarto, Whittberg. 1622.  
3. For the Greek of the New Testament, Concordant. Graecc Lat. N. Test. ab Hen. Steph. Edit. Genevae 1624. there are former and worse Editions.  
4. For Latin, which are of less use in our Trade, Concordant. Bibl. Lat. ad Correctionem Romanam Editae, vulgata, etc. Francofurti ●620. there are former Editions, but imperfect.  
5. The use of the Hebrew and Greek Concordance is very great in many respects; one (and not the least) when I doubt what this word signifies in this Text, I turn to my Concordance; see how many times the word occurs, and by the circumstances of some of those places, 
Vid. Corn. Jansenii Comment. in suam Concordiam Evangel. Mogunt. 1612. 80. 2. Concordiam Evang. per T●eol. Parisiensem. Octavo. Paris 1660. 3. Osiandri Elench. Harmoniae, etc. Basil. 1561. 4. Comment. Ja. Fabri Stapul. in 4 Evang. & ibi post praefat. Canon's seu Concord. Evang. 5. N. Test. Graec. per Steph. Lutetiae 1550. & Canon's Evangelistarum ab Ammonio conditos & ab Eusebio absolutos. 6. Vid. e●sdem Canones apud Hieronymum Opum per M. Victorium Tom. 6. in initio. 7. Et Dan. Tossanum in Evang. Harmoniam.  I find it must signify such a thing in such a place; being then sure it signifies so, I apply that signification to the place of which I doubted and see whether it will be suitable with it. For instance, Heb. 11.1. Fides est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which some tender persona, substantia, expectatio, etc. Now to say that Faith is a person, or substance, or expectation, does not only seem, but really is incongruous, and no way agreeing with the nature of Faith; which is neither a person, substance, or expectation, but an accident, an assent of the Understanding; and the Object of it, Truth, not bonum futurum, which is the proper Object of Expectation or Hope. Here in this doubt I consult my Concordance, and find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to say nothing of the Old Testament, where it occurs many times, five times in the New Testam. where, 1. 
(a) Hebr. 1.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2 Cor. 9.4. & 11.7.  It signifies a person; 2. And twice it evidently signifies (and we render it) confidence. 3. And in the 
(c) Heb. 3.14.  fourth place, tho' not so evidently, yet probably it signifies Confidence too; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is Faith opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 versu 12.— 19 which is principium & fundamentum fiduciae & confidentiae nostrae; the ground and foundation of all our hopes of Heaven. 4. Now it being evident by the circumstances of the Text, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies confidence, if we apply that signification to Heb. 11.1. (the place doubted of) it will appear to be most congruous to the nature of Faith, and the thing there spoken of. These words then, Fides est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i. e.) Fides est eorum quae sperantur 
(a) 
Tindal renders it so; Faith is a sure confidence of things hoped for.  
Glossae veteres in calct Cyrilli 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arguo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 probatio & Oecumenio & Theophylacto. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in locum.   confidentia & eorum quae non videntur Argumentum, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies; and Hierom and the Vulgat render it, Faith is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such an Argument as is the ground of all the Assurance and Confidence we have, or can have of Heaven: This seems to me the genuine sense of the place if we consider either the signification of the words, or the nature of the thing signified; it being certain, and (on all sides) confessed, that a true and firm Faith in the Promises of God in the Gospel, is the foundation and evidence of all our hopes.  
2. For Lexicons and Glossaries will be necessary to find and know the signification of the words in the Originals of the Old and New Testament; and amongst them we may consult, for the Old Testament,  
1. Lexicon Polyglot. 7 Linguis per Ed. Castellum, Lond. 1669.  
2. Lexicon Pentaglot. Valent. Shindleri, Han. 1612.  
3. Masii Lexicon Hebr. Syriac. sive Chaldaic. & Graec. Antwerp. 157●.  
4. Joh. Buxtorfii Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum & Rabbinicum, etc. or his excellent Opus triginta annorum (as he calls it) Basil. 1639.  
5. Kercher's Concordance (before mentioned) may well be called and used for Lex. Hebr. Graec. every word in the Bible, and the various Translations of them being expressed by the LXX. in their (as they call it) Hellenistical Greek.  
6. Nomenclator Biblicus Hebr. Lat. per Ant. Hulsium, Bred. 1650. useful for all Divines.  
7. For proper 
(a) Vid. Hieronym. de locis Hebraicis, Tom. 3. p. 905, etc. & Theatrum Terrae Sanctae per Adricomium.  Names (for these already named are for Appellative words) such as these may be consulted.  
1. Gregorii Lexicon Sanctum; Hannou. 1634. Octavo. in which all proper Names in Scripture are explained.  
2. Onomasticon Sacrum in quo omnia nomina propria, Hebr. Chaldaic. Graec. etc. quae tam in Vet. quam N. Test. & Apocryphis occurrunt, explicantur per Joh. Leusden. Ultrajecti 1665. in Octavo. & in ejus calce de ponderibus, & mensuris, etc.  
For the New Testament.  
1. For Appellative words, I need not tell you (who know better) of Hesychius, Suidas Pharonius Etimologicum magnum, Glossae veteres per Steph. & Bonav. Vulcanius of Steph. his Thesaur. Harpocnation; all these are useful.  
2. For proper Names, Lex. sanctum Greg. Greg. (before mentioned) gives an account of all the proper Names Hebr. and Greek in both Testaments; so Steph. (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 
(a) There are two Supplements extant of Stephanus 1. Fragmentum Stephani de Vrbibus per Sam. Tennulium, Amstel. 1669. Quanto. 2. Genuina Stephani Fragmenta, etc. per Abraham Berkelium. Lug. Bat. 1674. Octavo.  of Cities, Suidas of proper Names of Men, etc.  
3. For Graec. Barbarous words which occur in the N. Test. you may consult Petri Chritomaei Graeco-Barbara N. Test. quae Orienti Originem debent, Amstel. Octavo. and his Lexicon Graeco-Barbarum.  
After the knowledge of words (quae sunt rerum signa & Indices) the next business will be to know the true sense of Scripture signified by those words; and here it will be convenient to consult Commentators, and that,  
1. Such as have writ on all the Bible.  
As 1. The Critics of the last Edition at London, or Synopsis Criticorum sacrae Scripturae, etc. of which four Tomes are already published, the first at London 1669. The benefit of which Book is very great, seeing when we doubt of any Text of Scripture, we may uno intuitu see what five or six Learned Men say of it, and then by collation of them and others, judge which of their Expositions be true.  
2. Biblia universa cum Commentariis, 1. Lyrani (Gente Judaei, Religione Christiani, Oxomiensis hic enim literis operam dedit.) 2. Cum Glossâ ordinariâ quam Strabo Fuldensis condidit circa annum 846. 3. Cum Glossâ Interline ariâ, Authore Anselmo Laudunensi circa Annum 1077. Of these three Lyranus is much the best, especially on the Old Testament, as well understanding the Hebrew and Greek, which the other two (as almost all the Barbarous and impious Age they lived in) were wholly ignorant of  
3. Biblia sacra Vet. & N. Test. cum Notis Tremellii & Junii Editiones tertiae, Hannoviae 1596.  
4. Cornelius à Lapide. Stephanus Monochius, Jacobus Tirinus, Emanuel Sa (all Jesuits) & Jo: Deodati may be consulted.  
Lud. de Dieu hath writ short (and significant Critical) Notes on all the Old and N. Testament, in five or six Volumes, Quarto.  
Commentators on the Old Testament.  
Such as have writ on all, or many, 
For the Old Testam. and how the Ancient Jews understood it, 1. The Chaldee Paraphr. 2. Jose. 3. Philo Judaeus: as for Antiquity, so for Authority and Sobriety they are more significant than any (may be) than all the Rabbins. Maximonides (qui primus inter suos nugare desiit) comes next them.  or at least some parts of the Old Testament; as,  
1. On the Pentateuch, 1. Ainsworth inferior to none. 2. Cajetan. 3. Calvin (ubi bene nemo meliùs.) 4. Johan. Ferus (a pious and sober Papist) who hath said many things well and truly; which appears because the Spanish Expurgatory Index has damned many passages in his Commentaries on the N. Test. and all his other Works (and consequently his Commentaries on the Old Testament) are prohibited 
(a) Caettra ejus opera à Sectariis vitiata (they know this to be a Lie, for they correct their own Editions of Ferus, in which they well know the Sectaries, as they call them, had no hand) prohibentur donec corrigantur. Index expurgat. ●ispan. Madr. 1667. in Joh. Fero (mihi) pag. 712. Col. 2.  absolutely, till they shall be (by the Inquisition) corrected. 5. Paulus Fagius his Annotations on the Chaldee Paraphrase on the Pentateuch. 6. Procopius Gazaeus. 7. Theodoret in his Questions on the Pentateuch. 8. Hieronynues ab Oleastro, Ant. 1568.  
2. Besides the Pentateuch, Cajetan, Calvin, Ferus, Theod. Hierom, Augustin and Beda, etc. and Pareus, have writ on other parts of the Old Test. and (when there is occasion) may be consulted.  
3. Particularly (to name some few) you may consult, 1. For Genesis and Exodus, Andreas Rivetus, who hath writ well on both, he hath also writ a very useful Book in Quarto on Exod. cap. 20. Lug. Bat. 1637. Also Pererius the Jesuit hath long and learned Commentaries on both these two first Books of Moses, etc.  
2. In short (for you have Catalogues of the Commentators on every part of the Bible in Print, out of which you may choose the Commentaries of Brentius, Calvin, Pet. Martyr, Joh. Wolfius, Bucer, Melanchton, Luther, Musculus, etc.) amongst Protestant Writers Cajetan, Masius, Arias Montanus, Gaspar Sanctius, Simeon de Musis (the best Popish Writer on the Psalms) A Lapide, Corn. Jansen. Villapandus in Ezekiel. Franciscus Ribera in 12 Prophetas minores) These (amongst Popish Writers) are very considerable, and their Writings worth consulting; and Arias Montanus in 12 Proph.  
1. In Hexameron you may consult, 1. Eustathium Antiochenum, Lugduni per Allaticum 1620. Quarto.  
2. Ambrosium in Hexameron, Tom. 4 Operum Edit. Erasm. Basil. 1527.   

Commentators on the N. Testament.  
For the N. Test. very many Ancient and Modern have writ Explications of it; some, or, when occasion, all may be consulted; as,  
1. Written on the whole N. Test. (or most of it; such as these. 1. Antient. 1. Chrysost. hath Hom. on most parts of the N. Testam. 2. Hier. the Gospels, Acts, and all St Paul's Epistles; but they are indeed 
(a) Vid. Riveti Critica Sacra, lib. 4. c. 5. pag. 373, 374.  none of his, as is certain, and confessed. 3. Venerable Bede, Tom. 5, and 6. Quarto. 4. Theophylact on the Gospels, Acts, and all St. Paul's Epistles; his Commentary on the Acts is by itself very hard to be met with; Gr. Lat. per Laur. Sifanum, Colon 1567. Theophylact has nothing on the Canon. Epist. or Revel.  
2. Modern; 1. Beza's Notes on the whole N. Testament: The best Edition is that of Cambr. 1642. Camerarius Notes upon the whole N. Testament are joined with it. 2. Calvin on all the N. Test. except the Apocal. These two, paucis exceptis quae Disciplinam Presbyterianam & Genevitismam sapiunt, are inferior to none, for the literal sense of the Scriptures. 3. August. Marloratus in N. Test. It is a Commentary upon the whole N. Test. containing the Expositions of eight or ten (and sometimes more) Protestant Commentators on every part of the N. Test. 4. Zach. Mathesius 4th Edit. 1611. 5. Dr. William Foulk in N. Test. contra Annotationes Anglo-Rhemensium. 6. Erasmi Annotationes in N. Test. 7. Aquinas in N. Test.  
2. Written in the 4 Gospels.  
1. For Protestants, such as these may be consulted: Chemnitius, Gochardus, Brentius, Bucer-Novae Glossae in Matth. Mar. & Lucam, per Robertum Stephanum; they are damned by the 
(a) Index Hispan. expurgat. Madr. 1667. in Rob. Steph. (mihi) p. 874. Col. 2.  Spanish Inquisitors, and therefore more valuable.  
2. For Papists, 1. Lucas Burgensis in quatuor Evang. Ant. 1606. 2. Maldonat. Jesuit. Lat. there are former and worse Editions 1629. he is Vir Dotatus; but, as Casaubon calls him, Maledicentissimus. 3. Hugo Cardinalis (alias Hugo de Sancto Claro) who writ about the year 1244. in which he was created Cardinal 
(a) Bellar. descript. Eccles. In Hugone de Sancto Claro.  by Pope Innocent the Fourth, in a time of great Ignorance and Superstition, when Popery was not yet formed; whence it is that he, and others of that Age have many things which they at Rome like not. 4. Jacobus Faber Stapulensis in quatuor Evang. He was an honest and sober Papist; has an excellent Preface before his Commentaries concerning the Excellency, Perfection, and Universal Use of Scripture; therefore that Preface totally, and many other things in his Commentaries are damned 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 purged, i. e. corrupted and spoiled by the Inquisitors and their Indices.  
3. Writers on the Epistles and Apocal. if not all, or most, are these.  
1. Ancient; as 1. Theod. in omnes Pauli Epistolas numero 14. He has nothing on the seven Canonical Epistles (James, Peter, John and Judas) nor the Revelation; he is amongst the Ancients 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, etc.  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 Ancient Authors (for so many he citys) and amongst them he often citys Photius; whence 'tis evident he lived after Photius, who flourished after the middle of the 9th Century, etc. 2. Modern; and 1. Protestants, such as Conrade. 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 inferior to Bishops once named 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 Judgement of Antiquity, and several mistakes in Geograph. Chronol. 
(e) 2 Thes. in the Argument prefixed 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 ●●an Anno Christi 44. as is certain out of Hi●●. 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, etc. 3. Cameronis Mirothecium Evang. etc. 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, etc. 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, etc. 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. Cousin 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. Controu. 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 Ancient 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 Canon's.  
5. Tantum habet Spurius ideo est hic Can. 85. Vet. 84; etc. 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 this Canon is spurious, 
(a) Vide Joh. Rainolds Thes●s, p 90. Dr. Cousins Scholastical History of the Can●n of Scripture, p. 111, 112, 113.  as were it my business) might evidently be proved.  
4. Athanasius in Synopsi, Tom. 2. p. 55. Gr. Lat. reckons the Books of Scripture as we do. 5. 
(b) V●d Hist. Eccles. Analysis Bib●iothecarii, p. 180. Par. 1649 & Pet. Pithaei Opera, Par. p. 14, 15.  Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople, his Catalogue of Canonical Books, apud Eusebium Chronologicorum p. 312. Graec. Edit. Amstel. 1658.  
6. Hieronymus 
(a) Vid eundem Hieron. praefat. 115. in Prove bia, Tom. 3. p. 6●2. E●●it. M. Victorii.  Praefat. 106. quae est in Lib. Regum, Tom. 3. p. 682, 689. ubi Libros Vet. jest eodem plane modo quo Ecclesia Anglicana, enumerat, & tum addit, quicquid extra hos est, inter Apocrypha reponendum.  
7 Ruffinus in Symb. Apostolorum, inter Opera Cypriani per Pamelium, p. 552, 553. per Goulartium, p. 575. where he has a Catalogue of Canonical Books of both Testaments, the very same with ours of the Church of England.  
8. Epiphanius de Ponderibus & Mensuris, 4-5. Tom. 2. p. 161.  
9 Nazianzenus Carmine 33. Operum, Tom 2. p. 98. Vtriusque Ttstam. Libros (nisi quod Apocal. 
(b) Amphilochius Jeoniensis in Jambis (in reliquis cum Nazianzeno consentiens) Apoc. etiam habet in Bibliotheca Patrum per Marg. De La Bigne, Par. 1589. Tom. 8. p 666.  desideratur) eosdem planè quos Eccles. Angl. agnoscit ac tandem carmen concludit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Eusebius (out of Origen reckons the Canonical Books as we do; only he (neither Protestants nor Papists do reckons an Epist. of Jerem. with his Prophecy and Lamentations, Hist. Eccles. lib. 6. cap. 25. p. 225. Edit. Valesii. Vid. etiam Cyrillum Catechesi Mystag. 4. p. 36, 37. & Nicephorum Hist. Eccles. lib. 2. c. 46. p. 216, 217.  
De Patribus Errorum Saeculo scriptis, etc.  
13. For the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers, 'twill be convenient to know who they were when they lived, and what they writ; and for this such as these may be consulted.  
1. Nomenclator praecipuorum jam inde à Christo nato Eccles. Doctorum Scriptorum, Professorum, Episcoporum, Testium Veritatis Scholasticorum, Conciliorum, Haereticorum Imperatorum, Roman. Pont. etc. per Hen. Ozaeum, Han 1619 He (in an Alphabetical order) only sets down the Age and Year they flourished in.  
2. Hieronymus de Illustr. Eccles Scriptoribus extat Operum Sancti Hier. per M. Victorium, Tom. 1. p. 236. Gr. Lat. ubi Sophronius dicitur Versionis Gr. Author, cum tamen inepta sit Versio, illa est 
(a) Vid. Isaac. Vossium in Notis ad Ignatium, p. 257, 258.  Sophronio indigna. 2. prodiit Hieron. de Scrip. Illustribus (unà cum Gennadio Massiliensi de Illustr. Eccles. Doctoribus) Helmestad. 1611. Quarto Prodiit posteà (cum aliis) 1639. quod ex sequente Aub. Miraei opere constet.  
3. Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica, seu Nomenclatores septem Veteres, Hieronymus, Gennadius Ildefonsus, Sigebertus, & per Aubertum Miraeum cum ejus Scholiis & Auctariis, Ant. 1639. Fol. Sed hi Authores à Miraeo Editi cautè legendi; Miraeus enim, non uno ●oco, Romae potius, quam Veritati favet.  
4. Illustrium Eccles. Orientalis Scriptorum, qui secundo Saeculo floruerunt Vitae & Monumenta; Authore Pet. Halloiec. Duaci 1636. habet etiam Pontifices, Imperatores, Persecutiones, & Concilia istius Saeculi, etc. Fol.  
5. Scriptorum Eccles. Abacus Chronologicus (Vet. & N. Test.) à Mose ad Annum Christi 1589. Authore Phil. Labbe, Par. 1658.  
6. Tabulae Eccles. quibus Scriptores Eccles. eorumque Patria, Aetas, Ordo & Obitus exhibentur a Christo nato ad Annum 1517. Lond. 1674.  
7. Phil. Labbe de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, Tom. 2. in Octavo, Par. 1660. in Calce, Tom. 1. Tract. 1. Joh. Papiffae Caenotaphium eversum.  
8. Joh. Tritthemius de Scriptoribus Eccles. cum append. Par. 1546.  
Many such as these are, who have given an account of the time wherein they lived, and the Writings of the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers, which possibly you may better know; such as these.  
De Scriptis Patrum Genuinis, Spuriis, etc.  
14. But because in the Works of the Ancient Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers, there are many Apocryphal and Spurious Books and Tracts which are indeed none of theirs whose names they bear, it will be necessary to know, and have some of those Authors who have writ Critica Sacra, and Censures of Books, discovering the Fraud or Ignorance of those who have published Erroneous and Heretical Books under Catholic names; such as these may be consulted.  
1. Plotii Bibliothcae●, by Shottus, 1611. Fol.  
2. Hierome de Scriptis Eccles. etc. of the Edition of Par. 1630. or rather of the Edition of Phil. Labbe (with his Additions) in two Vol. Par. 1660.  
3. Censura quorundam Scriptorum, quae sub nominibus Sanctorum & Vet. Authorum a Pontificiis citari solent, etc. per Rob. Cocum, in Quarto. Lond. 1623.  
4. A Treatise of the Corruption of the Fathers; by Dr. James, Quarto. Lond. 1612.  
5. Andr. Riveti Crit. Sacr. lib. quatuor, Octavo. cum Tracta. de Authoritate Patrum, Errorum causis, & Nothorum notis, Genev. 1626.  
6. Abrahami Sculteti Syntagma Medullae Theologiae Patrum, Quarto. Francofurti 1634. He gives an account of almost forty most Ancient Writers, of their Genuine Works, of their Supposititious, of their Errors, of their Consent with Protestants, and (the particulars wherein) and an Analysis of all their Genuine Writings.  
7. Joh. Dallaeus de Pseudopigraphis Apostolicis, Harderb. 1653.  
8. Davidis Blondelli Pseudo-Isiodorus & Turvianus vapulantes, etc. 4 Edit. 1628. Vet. Rom. Pontif. a Clement. 10. ad Sirisium, i. e. Ann. 383. Epist. Decretales ab Isiodoro Mercatore suppositas, & a Joh 
(a) Vid. Pet. de Marca de Primatu Lugdunensis Ecclesiae, p, 353.  Bosco Editas, ac tandem a Franc. 
(b) Turrianus ad Magdeburgenses Centuriatores pro Canonibus Apostolorum, & Epist. Pontif. Quart. Colon. 1573.  Turriano defensas spurias esse demonstrat Blondellus.  
9 Bellarmine de Script. Eccles. Sixtus Lenensis in Bib. Possevinus in Apparatu Sacro, etc. And many other Popish Authors confess and prove many supposititious Books Printed and Published with the Genuine Works of the Fathers, and yet very usually cite those Tracts (when they make for them) against Protestant's. In the Edition of Hierom's Works, the whole 9th Tome consists of such Tracts as are now confessed to be 
(a) Tom. 9 complectons fals● Hier. ascripta in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Tome.  all spurious. In the 17th Tome of the Magna Bibliotheca Patrum, Par. 1654. There is Index Chronologicus, & Index omnium Patrum Alphabeticus, in which we have many things well and truly said of the Times and Writings of the Ancient Fathers.  
10. Vid. Gratian. Dist. 15, & 16 praecip●e Can. Sancta Romana 3. where we have a long Catalogue of Authentic and Apoc. Books made by Pope Gelatius (and his Council of 70 Bishops, 494.) the Canon 
(b) Vid. Crab. Council Tom. 1. p. 991. & Concil. per Labb●, Par. 1671. Tom 4. 1259, 1260, 1261. Surius Concil. Tom. 2. p. 318.  of that Council we have elsewhere better than in Gratian; in Canon and Council they call some things Canon, or Anthentick, which they damn now as Apocryphal; and so do we too; and other things they approve as Authentic, which now neither they nor we approve Vid. Johan. de Turre Cremata in his Can. 15, 16. & Glossas (especially the late 
(c) Editionis Par. 1612. & 1618.  ones) where to reconcile the contradictions of this Canon and Council to the present Opinions of Rome, they are glad to say that this Canon is so much corrupted, 
(d) Toto hoc Canone tot modis distant ab Originali; ut satis certo statui non possit quae vera sit Gelasii Lectio. Nota ad verbum mandamus Can. 3. dist. 15. in utraque Editione Parisiensi.  that they cannot tell which words in it are really the words of Gelasius, and which not.  
15. It will be requisite to consult some Writers about the Authority and Use of Fathers, etc. such as these.  
1. Dallaeus de usu Patrum; extat, 1. Gallicè; 2. Lat. per Joh. Mettaienum, Genevae 1656. Quarto.  
2. Tractatus de Patrum, Conciliorum & Traditionum Authoritate in rebus Fidei, etc. Emenium K. Vyfalrinum cum praefat. D. Parei, Francofurti 1611. Octavo.  
3. Tractatus de Patrum Authoritate & ad quid etc. per Andr. Rivetum, praefixus Libro suo quem Criticum Sacrum inscripsit.  
4. Vid. Gratian. Dist. 9 Glossam à Turre Cremata ibid. & multo de Authoritate Scripturae Conciliorum Patrum, etc. The Socinians grant the Fathers no Authority 
(a) Totius Mundi praeter Apostolos, Authoritas in Religione nulla esi: Smalcius in Refutat. duorum Lib. Smeglecii de Erroribus Nou. Arria●o●um, lib. 2. 16. p 225. & & ibid. p. 223.  at all, and the Papists are sworn never to expound 
(b) in Juram●nto p●ofessio nis Fidei in Concil. Trident. Sess. 24. de Reformat. in Case, c●p. 12. Edit. Ant. 1633.  Scripture but secundum unanim. Patrum Consensum, but very little, and when they make against them none at all; as we may see by Cajetan 
(c) Who allows an Exposition of Scripture, tho' contra Torrentem Patrum ad Comment. in 1. Genes.  Fevardentius 
(d) Feuarde●tius says, If all were left out of the Fathers which we now believe not; Bona pars Scriptorum Patrum periret. Fevardentius in Iraenaeum, p. 494. ad Lectorem.  Maldonatus, 
(e) Maldonat. in cap. 6. Joh. p. 1487.  who tells us it was the Opinion of Augustin and Innocentius, first, that it was necessary to communicate Infants, 
(f) Augustini & Innocentii sententia sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia ibid. 116. p. 1488.  and that August. delivered this, non ut Opinionem suam, sed ut Fidei totius Ecclesia Dogma; and that this Opinion prevailed in the Church about 600 years, and yet denied now.  
Historici Eccles.  
16. For the better understanding Scripture and Fathers, the knowledge of Ecclesiastical History will be necessary; such as these,  
1. As have writ general Comprehensions and Epitomes of Ecclesiastical Histories; for instance;  
1. Timanni Gesselii Historia Sacra ordine Chronologico compendiosè digesta, a Mundo condito ad Annum Christi 1125. Trajecti ad Rhenum 1659. Vol. 1. Quarto.  
2. Joh. Cluverii Historiarum totius Mundi Epitome ab origine Mundi ad An. Christi 1633. Lugd. Bat. 1639. Vol. 1. Quarto.  
2. Such as have writ Ecclesiastical History anciently and more fully: As 1. Eusebii Hist. Eccles. cum Notis Hen. Valesii, Par. 1659. 2. Socrates & Sozomen per eundem, Par. 1668. 3. Theodoreti Evagrii Philostorgii & Theodori Hist. per eundem, Par. 1673. These give an account of Church-Affairs for almost 600 years: And if Ruffinus his two Books of Ecclesiastical History by Ben. Laurentius de la Bar, Par. 1580. And the Historia Tripartita composed by Cassiodore, and published by B. Rhenanum, Basil. 1528. be added, it may be complete, and facilitate the understanding of the forementioned Histories.  
3. Such as have writ lately (but most fully) Ecclesiastical History: As,  
1. Historia Eccles. per Centuriatores Mageleburgicos, Basil 1624. 2. Or the Epitome of it in 7 Vol. Quarto, by Lucas Osiander, Tubing. 1607. 3. Annal. Eccles. Baronii a Nato Christo ad 1197. Continuati à Provio ad Annum 1431. & a Spondano ad 1646. Not. de his Annal. 1. Quod ex Editionibus omnibus illam, Ant. 1612. solam & correctissimam agnoscit Baronius 
(a) Baronius in Lteris Chri●. Plantino latis quae extan in Calce, Tom. & 10 Edit Ant. 1611. Monet Lectrem omne illua esse Adulterous & Spuriun quod Editio. Dictae non est Consentatanum. Besides Baroniu●, we may consult Rob. Saliani annal Eccles. Vet. Test. Tom. 8. Colon. 1620. in F●l● Notand. extat Epitome Annal. Card. Baronii per Ludou. Aurelium, Octau. Monasterii 1638. 2. v. . There were three or four former Editions. 2. Even in this best Edition 1612. in the 4, 5, 6, 7 Tomes, the number of the Paragraphs are left out; whether this omission of these numbers was Casu or Concilio, I know not; but sure I am, that unless those numbers be supplied by the Pen, and writ in the Margin, Quotations cannot without great trouble be found in those four Tomes which want them. 3. Before those Annals of Baron. be used, the most Learned 
(b) Contra Casaubonum pro Baron. scripseruit. 1. Herebertus Rosweidus, Lib. Cui Titulus Lex Talionis, etc. Quarto. Ant. 1614 2. Audreas' Eudaemon Johannes, Quarto. Colon. 1617. Convi iis fortitèr, sed Argumentis frigidè contra Casaub. agunt. Vid. ad Trebbechorii Exercitat. ad annal Baronii ubi desiit Cafanbonus. Edit. Kibonii 1673. in Q●arto.  Exercitations of Casaubon upon them will be of infinite use to discover the many Errors of that Annalist. 4. And it must be remembered that Baronius study partium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not only zealous, but every where factious in maintaining the Pope's Prerogatives, and all the received Errors and Superstitions of that Church, and on the other side the Centuriators are in some things a little too straight lac d, so that the truth many times lies between them; so that an impartial Reader of their stories, by collections of what they have said, and the Grounds why they did so, may find that Truth which they (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) either could not or would not acknowledge.  
4. Two Historians more I would commend (for understanding the state of Religion since Luther) both persons of great Moderation and Fidelity (though of different Religions,) and writ what they might and did know.  
1. John Sleidani Comment. de Statu Religionis ab 1517 ad 1556.  
2. Thuani Historia ab Anno 1543. ad Annum 1607  
3. Add to these Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent: all excellent persons; Cedro digna locuti.  
17. For the better understanding each History, some skill in Chronology will be necessary for a Divine after a convenient knowledge of the 
(a) Hac ae re Vid. Pall. Crusium d● Epochis, 80. Basil. 1578. D. Petavius in Rationario Temporum 2 vol. 80 Par. 1636 etc. Helvium in Prolegone●is ad suan Chronologian, Oxon 1651.  Tecknical part of Chronology, de Anno, Mense, Septimana & de Aeris seu Epochis, etc. such as these will be necessary.  
1. Helvicus his Chronology 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as they call it) Oxon 1651. of continual use in reading History Sacred or Civil.  
2. Jac. Vsserii Armachani annal, etc. a Mundo Condito ad Annum Christi 73. vol. 2. in Folio.  
3. Chronicon Cath. Ed. Simson, Oxon. 1652. Folio.  
4. Chronicon Charionis a Melancthone & Peucero, auctum & editum Aureliae, 1610.   

Geography.  
18. Chronology and Geography are justly the Eyes of History Sacred or Civil, and therefore such Maps must be had. Erasmus when he writ his Annotations on the Acts, had a Map of the Roman Empire always before him; when he writ on St. Paul's Voyage to Rome, and finding all the places (mentioned in the Text) in his Map, he was very much pleased, and highly commended the Study of Geography: and Books as are useful in that kind may be consulted; such as  
1. For Maps, 
(b) See the large and distinct Map of Palestine prefixed to Eusebius de Locis H●braicis and Bonfrerius Notes upon it, p. 246. in the Edition of Eusebius mentioned a little after.  that Published by George Hormius, the Book is Entitled, Accuratissima Orbis Antiqui Delineatto, sive Geographia vetus, sacra & profana, etc. Fol. Amstel. 1657. particularly those Maps which concern Palestine and other places in Scripture.  
2. For Books; such as by way of Lexicon explain the proper names of Nations, Provinces, Cities, etc. mentioned in Scripture. As, 1. Stephanus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graecè Basil. 1568. Note it is but an Epitome of Stephanus made by Hermolaeus Grammaticus, and dedicated to Justinian the Emperor. 
* Vid. Etiam Genuina Stephani Fragmenta Gr. Lat. cum notis Abrah. Berkeliis 80. Lugd. Bat. 1674.   
2. Fragmentum Stephani de Vrbibus, per San. Tennatium Amstel. 1669. Quarto.  
3. Eusebius de Locis Hebraicis seu Onomasticon urbium & Locorum Sacrae Scripturae, etc. a Jac. Bonfrerio editum Paris, 1659. Gr. Lat. in Folio.  
4. Lexicon Geographicum Stephani per N. Lloidium, Oxon. 1670. Fol.  
5. Abrah. Ortelij Thesaurus Geographicus,  
6. Lexicon Geograph. Mich. Antoniuses Baudrand. Paris, 1670. the most complete of any in that kind.  

Vid. Geograph. Episcop. Breviarium per Phil. Labbe. in Conciliorum Collectione maximâ, Par. 1671. Tom. 16. p. 12.  2. Such as have not writ by way of Lexicon, such as these,  
1. Geographia Sacra Sam. Bocarti Cadami, 1646 Fol.  
2. Geographia sacra Caroli a Sancto Paulo Par. 1641. Fol. very considerable for each History.  
3. Notitia Episcopatuum Orbis Christiani per Aub Miraeum, Octavo. Antwerp, 1613.  
4. Notitia Graecorum Episcopatuum, a Jac. Gear. Edit. Par. 1648. in calce Codini.  
5. Notitia utriusque 
(a) Vid Notitiam Dignitatum Imp. Romani ex nova recentione, Phil. Labbe cum plurimis aliis opusculis & notis, Par. 1651. He has none of Pancirola's Notes; but only the Text of the ancient Notitia, and that somewhat more correct than the Edition at Genev. 1623.  Imperij cum notis Pancirolae, Genev. 1623. Fol.  
6. Notitia Episcopatuum totius orbis, Msc. in Archivis Laudanis J. 17. Bibl. Bodliana.  
7. Theatrum Terrae Sanctae, & Biblicarum Historiarum cum Tabulis Geographicis Auth. Christiano Adricomio Colon. Agripinae, 1590. Folio.  
8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grae. Lat. cum notis Gothofredi, Edit. 1608. Quarto.  
9 Geographia vet. & N. Test. per Cluverium Amstel. 1661. Quarto.   

Councils.  
19 Next those who have writ of Councils General, Imper. Patriarchal, Provincial, etc. are to be consulted, and  
1. 
Vid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vetus omnes Synodos, tam orthodoxas, quam haereticas brevi compendio continens, quae ab Apostolorum Tempore ad Synodum 8. (i. e.) ad 869. celebratae sunt Gr. Lat. per Joh. Pappum Argentorati, 1621. 4ᵒ. Cum notis Joh. Pappi & conciliorum omnium Historicam synopsin per Phillip Labbe, Par. 1661. 4ᵒ.  Such Authors as have given a general account when and where, and by whom they were called, what and how they acted, etc. such as these.  
1. Synopsis Conciliorum, in qua indicatur Quale, Vbi, Quando, propter quod habitum sit unumquodque Concilium, etc. there is joined with it. 1. Chronologia Patrum, Pontificum, etc. & Chronologiae Eccles. continuatio ad 1671. operâ D. Douja Par. 1691.  
2. Synopsis Conciliorum Historica, etc. In collectione conciliorum Maximâ Par. 1671. Tom. 16. in principio.  
3. Notitia conciliorum Eccles. per Joh. Cabassutium Lugd. 1672. Octavo.  
4. Solomon Gesnerus de conciliis, Lib. 4. Wit. 1600. 2. Vol. Octavo.  
The former Authors are Papists, the last a Protestant, and therefore much rather to be credited than the other, who are all sworn 
(a) Vid. Juramentum Professionis Fidei in Bullâ Pii Papae, 4ti, in Concil. Trident. Sess. 24. In calce cap. 12. de Reformatione.  to believe maintain and propagate all the Roman Doctrines and Practices, or all their received Doctrine, Discipline, Rites and Ceremonies.  
5. Epitome Conciliorum omnium a Nat. Christo ad 1619. Edit. Dan. Angelocrator Francofurti, 1620. 4 to.  
Angelocrator is a Protestant and a fierce Anti-Arminian as you may see, p. 162, 163. etc. dictae Epitomes.  
6. Vid. Brevem Historiam omnium conciliorum in calce Epitomes omnium Conciliorum per Greg. de Rives Lug. 1663. Fol.  
2. Such Authors as have given us only the Canons of Councils and not the Order, Acts and what was done in every Session; of these sort there are many, I shall name only these.  
1. Codex Canonum Ecclesiasticorum Dyonisii Exigui (i. e.) ipso interpret, floruit 
(b) Bellarmin de Script. Eccles. Labbe in Abaco Scriptorum Eccles. Ozeum in Nomenclatore supra cit●tis.  circa Annum 525, 533, 540. Edit. a Justello Par. 1628. in Octavo. Erat Abbas Romanus & Cod. Can. Eccles. Universae primus corrupit, si quidem Canones Apostolorum 50 Concilii Laodicensis 21 Concilii Carthaginensis 138. & Epistolam Cyrilli & Concilii Alexandrini Addidit. And he has left out 
(c) V●d. Codicem Canonum veterem Ecclesiae Romanae Par. 1609. Octavo. A●te● erat edit. Moguntiae 1525. per Joh. We●delstinum, in that Edition all is left o●● except the Canons of the Council of Eph●sus, and several other things put in which are not in D●onisius Exiguus.  1. A great part of the last Canon of the Council of Laodicea (that is the Catalogue of the Canonical Books) p. 86. 2. Four Canons of the Council of Constantinople, p. 86. And 3. All the Canons of the Council of Ephesus. And 4. The 28 Canon of Chalcedon; for these Canons even then in the sixth Century, were not liked at Rome.  
2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gr. were published by Joh. Tilius, Par. 1540 Quarto. In which the last Canon of the Council of Laodicea, the Canons of Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon, (left out by Dyonisius Exiguus) are according to all the Greek Copies faithfully put in: And the Canons of the Constantinopolitan Council in Trullo 103. And 22 Canons of the second Nicene Council put in.  
3. Canon's dictos a Joh. Tilio Gr. solum editos Gr. Lat. cum notis nonnullis edidit 
(d) The same Canons were published Gr. Lat. by Andr. Gesner 1559. in a Book Entitled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Folio.  Elias Ehingerus Wittenbergae 1614 in Quarto.  
4. Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Universae Gr. Lat. cum notis edidit Christ. Justellus Par. 1610. This is the true and best Edition of that Codex Canonum, as it is published by Justellus, and is indeed, next the Bible, the most Authentic Ecclesiastical book in the World, as being approved and received by the Universal Church (Gr. Lat.) East and West, whence it was called Codex Canon. Eccles. Vniver.  
5. Codex Canonum Eccles. Africanae Gr. Lat. per Justellum, Par. 1614 Octavo. The best Edition of those African Councils. Cum notis Justelli.  
6. Synodorum Generalium & Provincîalium, Decreta & Canon's, Scholiis, Notis & Historicâ Actorum dissertatione illustrati, per Christianum Lupum Tomis 5. in Quarto, Buxellii, 1673.  
3. Such as have writ Conciliorum Summas, and have not only the Canons but several Censures, Explications, and Animadversions upon them, etc. such as these may be consulted,— 1. Summa omnium Conciliorum per Barth. Caranzam, Octavo. Rothomagi, 1633. little credit to be given to this collection of Canons: for when any thing makes against Rome, Caranza will corrupt the Text, so when they are condemned in the Council of Laodicea, qui Angelos 
(e) Concil. Laodiceum Can. 35. apud Caranzam, pa. 191.  Colunt, He reads it, qui Angulos Colunt, and that both in Lemma and Canon too; so of Pope Sylvester, for, Is Magus fuisse fertur, he 
(f) Ibid. pa. 788.  has it, Is Magnus fuisse fertur.  
2. Summa Conciliorum omnium per Francis. Longum a Cariolano, Antwerp, 1623. Fol. A confident (to say no worse) Parasite of the Court of Rome, & Pontificiae Omnipotentiae vindex Acerrimus.  
3. Summa Conciliorum omnium per Lud. Basil, Tomis 2. Folio. Par. 1659. As high for Rome as the former, but of much more use, etc. He has in the beginning of the 1 Tome an Erroneous and Impious Apparàtus de triplici 
(g) 1. De V●rbo Scripto, Scripturas Sacras intelligit. 2. De Verbo tradito seu traditionibus. 3. De Verbo explicato per Eccles. Romanam intelligit: Idque vol. 1. per Concilium. 2 Vol. per Papam extra Concilium.  verbo Dei.  
4. Sanctiones Ecclesiasticae tam synodales, quam Pontificiae in tres partes distinctae. 1. Synodos Vniversales, 2. Particulares, 3. Pontificum Decreta continet per Fran. Joverium Paris, 1555. Fol. This both for Method, a good Index, and the Author's fidelity) is (by much) the best and of most use.  
4. Such as have cast the Canons of Councils into common places having made a Catalogue of Heads, and then referred to every Head those Canons which concern it; such are  
1. Epitome Juris Pontificii veteris per Antonium Augustinum, Paris, 1641. Fol. or Romae, 1614 an Incomparable Book or rather a Library of the Canon Laws to those who know the right use of it.  
2. Epitome Canonum Conciliorum omnium per Gregorium de Rives Lugd. 1663. Fol. He has the Heads for common places in an Alphabetical Order, and then refers to each of them, those Canons which concern them: a book of good use but (as all other) short of Ant. Augustinus.  
5. It will be convenient to have such Authors as have made more full collections of the Councils, with the order and time of each Session of their Acts, Canons, Epistles, etc. such as these,  
1. Concilia per Pet. Crabbe Tomis 3. Col. Agrip. 1551. There is a former and worse Edition in 2 Tomes. Colon. 1538.  
2. Concilia per Laurent. Surium in 4 Tom. Col. Agrip. 1567.  
3. Concilia per Nicholinum, 5 Tom. Venetiae, 1585.  
4. Concilia per Binium in 9 Tom. and 10 Vol. Par. 1636.  
5. Concilia Tomis 37. Par. 1644.  
6. Concilia per Labbe & Cossartium, Tom. 16. Par. 1671.  
Concerning all these it may be observed, 1. That they are all Popish Editions, and many things to be read with great Care and Caution, spurious Canons and Decretal Epistles of ancient Popes put in, and genuine Canons left out or corrupted, or industriously contrived notes, to make them look like Rome.  
2. The way to be armed against these piae Frauds is to collate Editions and Msc. Copies, and consult those Authors (before mentioned) which have writ censures upon the Works of Fathers and Councils.  
3. Of all their collections of Councils Pet. Crabbe is most commended for his Fidelity, and (not for more, but) less fraud than those who follow him. All of them generally leave out the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon; and those few who have it, rail at it, and damn it, as got by Fraud, and the Pride of the Patriarch of Constantinople; and every one of them, even Crabbe and Cossartius in their Concilia Maxima (tho' it be extant 
(a) Concilium h●c Pisanum sec●ndum Edit. Paris ab Hie●onymo de ●ro●rià 1514.  and Printed before 
(b) Hoc est ante 1517.  Luther) leave out Concilium ●isanum secundum, and only name it, and both they and their Index Expurgator. 
(c) Index Expurgat Hisp●n. Mad iti 1667. Verbo Concilium Pisanum, Class. 3 & Index Romae 1664. p. 29.  damn it, because it makes against them, tho' it was called by the Emperor, King of France and Cardinals, and kept only by Catholics, and that according to the Constitutions of their own General Councils of Constance and Basil; and the Council itself, both in that time it sat, and after, was called 
(d) It was called 1511. and Printed 15●4. and the Title prefixed to it in the Printed Copy is this, Constitution●s factae in diversis Sessionibus Sacri Generalis Pisani Concilii.  Sacrum Concilium Pisanum, etc.  
Of all the forenamed Editions, that of Labbe and Cossartius, Paris 1671. in 17 Vol. is the most comprehensive, containing above a fourth part more than any former Edition; by reason whereof it is of far more use than any other.  
6. There be other Editions or Collections of Councils, or their Canons, of great use: As,  
1. For particular Councils; 1. Versio Vetus Lat. Concilii Niceni secundi per G. Long. Colon. 1540 in which p. 68 we have these words, Post Consecrationem Corpus Domini & Sanguis vocantur; He speaks of the Eucharistical Elements. Now Binius reads it thus, 
(e) Binius Concil. Tom. 1. p. ●58. Edit. Par. 1636.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It was, (as is evident by the 
(f) And Crabbeul●s that true Version 7. Concilium. Tom. 2. p. 568.  Old Lat. Version) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Binius makes it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
2. Illiberritanum Anno 305. cum discursu Apologetico Ferd. de Mendoza & Notis Vberioribus Emannuel. Gundisalvi Tellei, Lugd. 1665. Folio.  
3. Concilium Tridentinum cum Declarationibus Cardinalium, Citationibus Sotealli, Remissionibus Barbosae, Additionibus Balthaseris Andreae, Antwerp, 1633. Octavo. It is of all Editions the best, of signal use, and a Repertory for all Points of Popery.  
4. Concilii Tridentini Canon's & Decreta cum aliis in Concilio gestis, scil. 1. Cum Principum Literis ad Concilium. 2. Legatorum Orationibus ad Synodum habitis. 3. Synodi Responsis. 4. Patrum Orationibus. 5. Eorundem Sententiis & Disputationibus, de Rebus gravioribus in Synodo habitis, etc. per Phil. Labbe, Par. 1667. Folio.  
5. Concilium Constantiense & Basiliense, per Zacharian Ferrerium, Mediolani 1511. six years before Luther appeared against Rome.  
6. Concilium Constantiense & Pisanum secundum (quod alias non extat) Editum ab Hieronymo de Croaria, Par. 1514. Octavo.  
These last Editions of the Councils of Constance, and Basil, and Pisa, are of unquestionable Authority, as writ by Papists of those times, Men of great Note and Learning, and no way infected with Luther's Heresies, seeing they writ before he appeared against Rome, &c  
7. And as for particular Editions of some particular Churches, it will be convenient to know some more accurate Collections of the Canons and Decrees of Councils; I shall mention two or three: As,  
1. Bibliotheca Juris Canonici Veteris, etc. Opera Guil. Voelli Dris. Sorbonici & Hen. Justelli (Men of great Learning and Fidelity) Par. 1661. in two Vol. Fol. In them we have the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Anglicanae with Jastellus his Notes upon both (scarce elsewhere to be had) and more particulars truly published according to the Original M. Scr. (Gr. Lat.) and not, as many are, to any partial Interest.  
2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu Pandectae Canonum, Apostolorum & Conciliorum ab Eccles. Graecâ receptorum & Epistolarum Canonicarum S. Patrum cum Scholiis Balsamonis, Aristeni Zonarae, etc. per Guil. Beveregium, Vol. 2 in Fol. Oxon. 1672. of great use for a comprehensive knowledge of Ecclesiastical Antiquities.  
8. Other Collections there are of Councils of particular Nations, which are to be known and consulted; such as,  
1. For our Nation, Spelman's Councils, in two Vol. Folio.  
2. For Spain, Collectio Conciliorum Hispaniae per Garsiam Loaisam Madriti 1393. Fol. For altho' they may be in the Concilia Maxima by Labbe, yet neither in so good order, nor so easy to be made use of.  
3. For France; the Collectors of their Councils are many: As for instance.  
1. Concilia Galliae per Sirmondum, Tom. 3. Fol. 1629.  
2. Concil. Galliae Novissima per Ludou. Odespun, Par. 1646. Fol.  
3. Conciliorum Antiquorum Galliae Supplementum Operâ & Study Pet. De la Land, Par. 1666. Folio.  
4. Concilia Galliae Narbonensis; Stephanus Balasius Notis illustravit & Edidit, Par. 1668. Octavo.  
2. As Controversies in Religion are now stated, Acquaintance with School-Divinity will be necessary; The Fathers of the Schoolmen are Lombard and Aquinas.   

Schoolmen.  
1. For Lombard the Master of the Sentences. Bishop of Paris, and flourished about the year 1145. if Bellarmine 
(a) Bellar. de Script. Ecclesiast. in Pet. Lombardo.  say true, it will be convenient to have.  
1. His four Books of Sentences, either Editionis Lovarii 1568. Quarto. Or 2. Which is much better Editionis Moguntia 1632. Oct. Edidit Anton. Demochares Dr. Sorbonicus; sub finem annexi sunt Articuli erronei in quibus Magister non tenetur) partim Parisiis olim damnati, partim communiter non probati.  
2. Lambertus Danaeus in primum L●brum Sententiarum, Octavo. Genev. 1589 He has, 1. Prolegomena, quibus Scholasticae Theologiae Origo, progressus & aetates ostenduntur. 2. Commentarius triplex. 3. Elenchus Locorum Scripturae & Patrum, quos addendo, detrahendo vel mutando corrupit Lombardus. 4. In Calce Synopsis sanae & Veteris Doctrinae de Trinitate.  
3. Joh. Martinez de Ripalda in Libros quatuor Lombardi. He 1. Gives a short Analysis of each distinction; 2. A List of the Questions the Schoolmen handle on those distinctions. 3. Under every Question he citys the Schoolmen, who, and where they handle such Questions, and so refers the Reader to the chief Authors of each Question.  
4. Durandus and Ariminensis amongst the more Ancient Schoolmen, etc. Ockam 
* Ockam is damned in Indice Expurgat. Alexandri Papae 7. Romae 1667. and therefore we may be sure 'tis some great Truth he is guilty of. , Scotus, Antwerp 1620.  
5. For the later Commentators on the Sentences, Gabriel Biel and Estius are worth the having (others Old and more Modern) may be consulted (if occasion.) By comparing the Old and later Schoolmen, you, may see that Popery does proficere in pejus; for the Old speak more freely many things (which since Luther and the Trent Conventicle) pass for little better than Heresy at Rome.  
2. For Aquinas; his Summae is the most considerable part of his Works; and, if that impious and lying Picture before them say true, had the express approbation 
(a) Ita Christus in Cruse pendens Aquinaetem alloquitur in Iconismo summae ej●s praefixo. Edit. Duaci 1614  of our Saviour, Benè scripsisti de Me Thoma; 'twill be convenient to have.  
1. His Summae Coloniae Agrippinae, An. 162.  
2. Bannes Vasques, Suarez, etc. or Cajetan, who is the most moderate, and comes nearer Truth, and such others; for there are many, and Catalogues 
(b) Vid. Catalogum Scriptorum in Summam Aquinatis in Calce.  of them may be consulted.  
Concerning Schoolmen and their Theologia Scholastica we may farther consider,  
1. That our Reformed Writers note three Intervals of time, which they call Theologiae Scholasticae aetates. 1. Scholasticorum & Theologiae Scholasticae aetas prima seu Vetus incepit Anno 
(c) Vid. Lamb D●●●eum in Lib. 1. S●nt. P. Lombar di Pr●ligom. c. 2.  1020. Lanfranco Papiensi Scholasticorum istius aetatis Principe, & duravit ad Annum 1220. In this Interval Lanfrancus and his followers undertook the Justification of Rome, and all her Errors, particularly Transubstantiation which then begun to be hatched and watchfully defined in the Lateran Council 
(d) Concilium L●●●onum sub I●●●ntio Papa, ●. 1215. . To effect this, they equal the Fathers to Scripture (finding some things in them) but 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 Authentic with them, and whatever seemed contradictory was denied, or construed to a complying sense.  
2. Scholastica Media ab Alberto Magno 1220. ad Durandu● 1330. In hoc Intervallo Aristoteles (aut Scholasticâ superiori ad Theologiae limen) in ipsa Ad●● a Sacrarii Theologiae Introductus & scripta ejus demonstratione niti censentur; qua autem Verbum Dei docet credulitate & opi●●●r● probabili te●●●; quod etiam expressè & publice patentur 
Gal. Ockamus ●n C●ntilo●●●●●i●sculè.  & asserunt eorum Doc●●●●●: Hac 〈◊〉 ●uae●tione● 
(b) Vid. Lam●ert●m Danaeum Loco citato ubi earum aliquas (plurimae enim sunt) brevi Catalogo Lectori exhibet.  Curiosas, ●●p●as, Blasphem●●●●mere p●o●●nunt Schola●●ic● & Impie di cuti●nt, & ex principiis Philoso●●●● 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 Schoolmen, 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, etc.  
The two first give a true account of the Iniquity and Ignorance of those Times, of the Corruption of Divinity, Introduction of Errors 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 Latin 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 Emperor 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, etc. Tritthemius finished 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 Creature 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 observed of the Schoolmen (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 enslaved to maintain all the Errors 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 study) be many and great.  
21. It will be necessary for a Divine to have some Casuists, etc. 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 determined 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, 'twill 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 the Obligatione Conscientiae, & de Juramento, are of great excellence and use; for in them he has so plainly explained and proved 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, etc. 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 person's perusal.  
3. Amesius de Conscientia, etc. He was a Nonconformist, and so cautè legendus; but he was a Man Rational, and his Reasons are commonly consequent. 2. His Resolutions short and perspicuous. 3. The Texts he urges pertinent; so that when he's out, (which is not usual) you lose not much; and when he's right, you have it in a little time.  
4. Fridericus Baldwinus (a Lutheran he was) and cautè legendus as to that Point de Casibus Conscientiae, &. Witterburg. 1628.  
5. Casp. Erasmi Brochmanni Systema Vniversae Theologiae, in quo singuli Religionis Christianae Articuli, Controversiae priscae & recentes Polemicae expediuntur, & praecipui Conscientiae Casus è Verbo Dei practicè deciduntur, Vol. 3. in Quarto. Lipsiae 1638. There be former and worse Editions.  
1. For Popish Casuists, they are many, and some 
(a) Antonius Divina consists of twelve parts, and six or seven Vol. in Fol.  of them voluminous; amongst them such as these are of great Note and Authority.  
1. Manuale Confessariorum, etc. per Martinum Azpilivetum Navarrum. Paris 1620. Octavo.  
2. Fran. Toleti Cardin. de instructione Sacerdotis, etc. Lib. 8. Rothomagi, 1630. Octavo.  
3. Vincenti Filliucii Questiones Morales Colon. Agr. 1629. Fol. as full and learned as any among the Jesuits, of which sort of Casuists we do not mince the matter, nor (as some do) with soft and ambiguous words mollify their horrid opinions; I shall name one or two who speak plain Popery, and confidently profess and endeavour to prove their most desperate opinions; as for instance.  
1. Antonii de Escobar Theologia Moralis Lugd. 1646. Octavo.  
This is a good Edition, but there are two better ones at Lions and another at Brussels 1651.  
2. Thoma Tamburini Societat. Jesus, explicatio Decalogi, Lugd. 1659. Folio.  
3. And that we may know what his erroneous opinions be, and where to be found, we have a Catalogue of no less than one hundred and three pernicious Errors found in his works, in a Book printed in the same place and same year, that Temburinus his cases of Conscience were published: the Book has this Title. Extrahit de plusieurs erreurs & maxims pernicieuses; contenues dans une volume, du Pere Tambourin Jesuit, etc. Imprime à Lion en la present Anne, 1659. Quarto.  
4. He who has a mind to see more of the Jesuits Casuistical Divinity may consult the Theologia moralis Pauli Laymann Jesuitae Lugd. 1654. and Francisci Bordoni propugnaculum opinionis probabilis, in concursu probationis operum Bordoni, Tom. 6. Lugd. 1668. Fol.  
5. And lastly, Vid. Amadai Guimonii opusculum singularia universae ferè Theologiae moralis complectens adversus Quorundam expostulationes contra nonnullas Jesuitarum opiniones Morales, Lugd. 1664. 4● He endeavours to justify all the Jesuits extravagant and wild opinions laid to their charge by the Jansenists in their 
(a) Vid. L●d. Mo●●a●ii L●●●ras P●●●i●c●●●●. de M●●●● & P●●●●● J●s●●●●●● Disc●pl●●● C●●●●. 1●05. in 〈◊〉.  Provincial Letters, and the Jesuits Morals, 
(b) The Jejune 〈◊〉 ●als collected out of their own Books by a Dr. of Sor●on, L●●d. 1670. Fol.  and the mystery 
(c) In 4, or 5. Vol. in 8●. Notand that there is D●cretum conditum in Congregatione Generali Romanae & Vni●●●salis I●quisitionis, etc. D●tum Rome, 1641. in quo ●●●ia edita & edenda ●a 〈◊〉 ● c ●t●a, quam pro Jansenio pro●i●●●tu●, ne quis legate, retineat, & ●. and yet ever si●ce they write, read, and retain such Books amongst them.  of Jesuitism, and to do this he shows that many eminent Authors and Writers of the Roman Church (before and besides the Jesuits) maintained with approbation the same opinions, so that this work of Guimenius is a Common Place Book and Repertory for us Heretics, wherein we may find all the most impious and wild opinions of the Church of Rome (particularly cited by Guimenius) and eight or ten or more eminent and approved Writers of that Church who publicly held and defended them.  
22. Besides Popish Casuists they have many Writers whom they call Summistae, who have put almost all heads of Divinity in an Alphabetical Order, and then explain each by way of position, case, or question; There be a World of such Writings, the old ones (before Luther, when they Writ most secure) speak plain Popery; the latter are more cautious and cunning, yet suffficiently erroneous; I shall name two only.  
1. Summa Vniversae Theologiae Raynerii de Pisis Ven. 1585. Quarto.  
2. Summa Ecclesiasticae Disciplinae & totius juris Canonici aucta & recognita, Lugd. 1598. Authore Pet. Crespelio. He is the most significant amongst them. He does under every Head cite passages out of Fathers, Councils, Historians, Schoolmen, etc. And any thing which he thinks makes for the Catholic Cause, what such Writers say (their Books being in an Alphabetical Order) is soon found; and therefore if in reading them little truth is got, little time is also lost in seeking it: of these sort of Writers are Antonius Archiepiscopus Florentinus, Card. Cajetan Turrecremata in his Summa Ecclesiae, a Book by reason of the Cardinal's Authority and Learning considerable, as also which occurs in the end of his Summa, for his Apparatus super Decreto 
(a) Extat hoc Decretum Gr. Lat. apud Binium Concil. Tom. 8 p. 851. Edit. Paris 1636.  Vorionis Graecorum in Concilio Florentino ab Eugenio Papa 4. Promulgato; Augustinus de Ancona, and a Rabble of such Romish Janissaries, the Pope's Praetorian Band, Capitoliis custodes & Pontificiae omnipotentiae Jurati vindices.  
23. Seeing every Divine of the Church of England is bo and to subscribe and defend the Doctrine and Discipline of our Church against all Adversaries, and none can do that till he know what the Doctrine and Discipline is, and where 'tis authentically to be found; and seeing the Works of Jewel, Raynolds, Hooker, Laud, and Whitaker, etc. though they are the Works of Learned, and Great, yet Private men; nor is any Son of the Church of England bound to subscribe to all they say; It must therefore be considered what Books as to our Doctrine and Discipline, are Authentic and owned by our Church as such: and of this kind we have only four: That is,  
1. Our Articles, 39 First composed and agreed on in Synodo London. 1552. i. e. 6. Edwardi 6 ti, and Printed in Lat. 1553. They were 42. they were after 1562. Eliz. 5. revised in the Convocation at London, reduced to 39 and published in Latin, 1563. A Copy of which is in Bodley's Library amongst Selden's Books with the Original Subscriptions of the Clergy annexed to it.  
2. Our Book of Homilies composed five years before the Articles, Anno. 1. Edward 6 ti, 1547.  
3. Our Liturgy which was first published 1549. then revised by Cranmer and Bucer, and published 1552. That is 6 to Edvardi 6 ti, and 
(b) Vid. Stat. 5. & 6to, Ed. 6ti, cap. 1.  left established at his Death, abolished by Mary, 
(c) Stat. 1. Mar. Sess. 2. cap. 2.  and again established 
(d) Vid Stat. 1. Eliz. cap. 2.  by Queen Elizabeth, with some alterations, 1558.  
4. Our Book of Ordination; all these confirmed by Parliament and Convocation; and so by the Supreme Power Ecclesiastical and Civil, and so whatever is contained in those four Books, which concerns either Doctrine or Discipline, is Authentic and Obligatory to the who●e Church and Nation, and all persons whether Clergy or Laity; This our Common Lawyers will admit and no more, because as they would have it to diminish the Ecclesiastical, and increase their own Civil Power, No more are confirmed by Act of Parliament; but we say and can prove 
(e) Vid. M●c. de Excommnicatione C●●cellario missum, 166.  that there are other Books which are, and de Jure should be as Authentic and Obligatory as the former four. As,  
1. Our Ecclesiastical Canons made in Convocation 1. Jacobi. 1603.  
2. The Provincial Constitutions; Quas Collegit Guil. Linwood (erat primo 
(f) M. Parker Antiquit. Britan. in Guil. C●ichly, p. 285.  Officialis Curiae de Arcubus, dein custos privati● sigilli, ac demum● Menevensis Episcopus) & Glossis Illustrare 
(g) ●a Linwood in Praesat.  Incepit 1423. perfecit 
(h) Vid. Glossam ad constitat. Finaliter Verbo R●moto, pa. 161. Col. 3. Edit. Par. 1505. de Haereticis, Lib. 5.  Glossas illas circa Annum, 1429. Constitutiones has, cum erant in Synodis Provinciae Cantuariensis conditae, Provinciam illiam solum obligasse: Constitutiones Legatinae Othonis & Othoboni (erant Legati Pontificis in Anglia sub Hen. 3. cum Glosses Joh. de Aton. Canonici Lincolniensis, Notand. 1. quod, Guil. 
(i) In G●●● & 〈◊〉 Verbo 〈…〉 & ●xd●cto.  Linwood citat hunc Joh. de Aton. L●nwoodo erat antiquior. 2. Constitutiones h●s Angl. Vniversam obligasse; conditae enim erant in Conciliis 
(k) Vid. M. 〈◊〉 ad 〈◊〉 1237. in 〈◊〉. 3. p. 446, 447.  ubi aderant utriusque Provinciae Episcopi Pontificio Legato Praeside.  
Now all these Canons and Constitutions, (Provincial and Legantine) and indeed the whole Canon Law is still in use, in all our Ecclesiastical Courts, and Obligatory so far as they are not inconsistent with, 1. The Law of God. 2. The Law of the Land or the Prerogative Royal, as may appear by many statutes (k) not yet abrogated. 
(l) Vid. S●●. 2●. Hi●. 8. ●●p. 19 ●●●ne which is confirmed 1 Eliz. cap. 1. Vid. E●i●● 2●. & 35. H●●. cap. 8. cap. 16.   
That the Doctrine and Discipline of our Church are Authentiquely contained in the foresaid Books, Canons, and Constitutions being certain and confessed: The next query will be how and by what means a young Divine may come to know the true sense and meaning of those Writings etc. In answer to which Query, with submission to better Judgements, I say there can be no better means to know the true meaning of Articles, Canons and Constitutions, etc. than by a diligent and intelligent reading the Works of those excellent Persons, who (ab origine) contrived those authentic Writings (ejusdem enim est exponere, cujus est componere) or since successively have defended them against all the Adversaries of our Church, and Pope, Presbyter, and Fanatic, and that with success and Victory, I mean such as Cranmer, Bucer, 
(l) Buceri Scripta Anglicana praecipuè Basil. 1577. V●t. Argentorati. He was Reg Professor at Cambr.  Pet. Martyr, 
(m) He was Professor of Theol. at Oxon.  Jewel, Raynolds, Whit-gift, Bancroft, Hooker, Joh. White, Davenant, Abbot, Crakanthorp, Field, Laud, Chillingworth.  
As for our late Writers or Scribblers rather, to spend time in reading them is to misimploy and lose it, and to speak freely many Apocryphal Pamphlets (let him who likes them, call them Books,) have been of late years Writ and Licenced, which datâ operá & ex professo, endeavour to confute the established and known Doctrine of our Church, and all Reformed Churches in Europe, and maintain Positions, which are evidently Socinian, Popish, or Pelagian, whence we have too much ground to wonder why any Son of the Church of England (for so these Scribblers call themselves) dare Writ or Licence such Apoc. Books, which they are bound by Law and Conscience to condemn.  
And as a Divine should and ought to know the Doctrine and Discipline of our Church that so he may be able to teach and vindicate it from the Cavils and Oppositions of our Adversaries, so he ought to know what are the erroneous opinions of the Enemies of our Church (especially the Papists) for no man can confute what he does not know. To Write against Rome and confute her for her Doctrines she does not hold, is a calumny, not a just confutation. All that Lombard, or Bellarmine, or Vasquez, or Cajetan hold is not presently to be laid to the charge of the Roman Church; but such things as she by public Authority owns in her Authentic Constitutions, etc. Popish errors than are either Fidei aut facti, in credendis aut agendis; such as concern their Doctrine and Discipline.  
1. For their Credenda and Errors in Doctrine they have declared authentically.  
1. In their Trent 
(n) And so in all those Councils they call Ecumenical and approve (though we do not) as the Nicene Council, and about thirteen more which came after it, whatever Errors be in any of these they do and must own; for seeing they do approve those Councils, they must approve their Positions and Decrees: We have a Catalogue of what Councils the Church of Rome acknowledges, prefixed to the Corpus Juris Canonici, Paris 1618. Fol. and to the last Edition of that Law, Lugduni. 1661. Quarto.  Council, the best Edition at Antwerp, 1633. Octavo. of which before pag. 18. 3.  
2. In the Chatechismus Tridentinus ex decreto Concil. Trident. jussu Pii Papae, 5. There are very many Editions but the best is that at Paris, 1635. Octavo.  
3. In their Pope's Bulls. 1. Eccloge Bullarum & Pii Quarti, 5 ti, Gregorii 13. Lugduni 1582. Octavo.  
Item, 2. Literae Apostolicae, etc. de officio Inquisitionis cum superiorum Approbatione, Romae, 1579. Fol. Extant hae Literae cum altarum Auctario in calce Directorii Inquisitionis per Nicol. Eimericum Ven. 1607. 3. Nova computatio Privilegiorum Apostolicorum Regularium mendicantium, etc. per Emman. Rocherum Turnoni 1609. Fol.  
In which collection we have the Bulls of about 44 Popes.  
4. Bullarium Romanum Novissimum a Leone magno ad Vrbanum. 8. Tom. 4. Fol. Romae, 1638. Edidit Mar. Cherubinus (extat editio hujus Bullarii alia posterior, & additis Vrbani & Innocentii Constitutionibus auctior Lugduni sumptibus Phil. Board, etc.) This last Edition is best. 1. Because it contains more Bulls. 2. Because I find many things in this last Edition of Lions (which being damned by the Inquisitors) are to be expunged, 
(o) 〈…〉 19 〈…〉 ●●g●um 〈…〉 & 〈…〉 In●● 〈…〉 ●●um Ib. pag: 371.  and the Edition prohibited till they be so.  
4. In their Canon Law; all these are of public Authority received with approbation of their Popes and Church.  
2. For their agenda, Matters of Fact and Discipline, their Sacred and Civil Rites and Ceremonies, we may have them Authentically set down in such Books as these.  
1. In Missali Romano, There are very many Editions of it, and much differing one from another, as is evident and may appear by comparing the Mscs. (of which we have many in Bodleys' Library, and some in mine) with the Printed Copies, the first and more ancient with those that follow: Besides the Roman Missal (which never was in England) there are many other proper for other Countries: so we had here 1. Missale secundum usum York. 2. Missale secundum usum Sarum. 3. Missale secundum usum Hereford. 4. Secundum Eversham. 5. Lincoln. 6. Bangor, etc.  
2. Breviarium Romanum. There be as many and differing Editions of this, and Breviaries of other Churches as well as Rome. The Breviary of Sarum (so famous in England) they called it Portiforium, etc.  
3. Pontificiale Romanum, Containing their Offices for Ordination, Confirmation, Consecration of Churches, etc. and other things peculiar to the Bishop.  
4. Rituale Romanum, continet ritus in administratione Sacramentorum usitatos; videl. Baptismi, Eucharistiae, Paenitentiae, Matrimonii & extremae Vnctionis, quorum Administratio ad Parochos spectat, etc. 5. Sacrarum Ceremoniarum seu Rituum Ecclesiasticorum S. Romanae Eccles. libri tres Rom. 1560. Fol. There are many more Editions of it, at Ven. 1506. at Col. 1572. and there again 1574. in Octavo. who ever desires to be informed and convinced of the many ridiculous (as well as Impious) Roman Superstitions, and the prodigious Papal Pride, let him get that Book.  
Many more Books they have of this kind containing several Sacred Offices or Rites; as their Processionale Graduale, Paris. 1668. Fol. Officium B. Mariae Manuale, secundum usum sacrum Hor. B. Virgins, etc. And to omit the rest; Psalterium B. Mariae per Bonaventuram (so they call it, and amongst his works 'tis printed) the most impious and blasphemous piece of Superstition and Idolatry that ever the Sun saw; for whatever in David's Psalms is spoken of God or our blessed Saviour, is in that Psalter attributed to the Virgin Mary, and yet Possevine has the Impudence to say 
(a) Possevine Apparatu Sacro, Verbo Rosarium (mihi) p. 357.  Psalterium Divi Bonaventurae Laudibus B. Virgins summâ pietate (Impietate potius in Deum Blasphemâ & Idolatricâ) Accomodatum.  
All the forenamed Books, Councils, Canons, or Sacred Offices have been received and publicly approved by the Church of Rome, and for what Errors or Superstitions occur in them, we may justly lay to their charge, and they must be responsable for them; But not so for the Writings of particular and private men, although of greatest eminence in their Church.   

Writers of Controversies.  
25. Next it will be necessary to have a comprehension of the Popish controversies of their Objections, and the Answers and Satisfaction our Men give to their Elaborate Sophisms. Books of this kind are many, and the Volumes great; to read them all is not opus unius hominis aut aetatis. Some few I shall name, such as,  
1. Dr. Crakanthorp contra Archiep Spalatensem, Quarto. Lond. 1625. No Book I have yet seen has so rational and short account of almost all Popish Controversies.  
2. Guil. Amesii Bellarminus Enervatus. I said before he was a Nonconformist; but for Rome and Bellarm. he has distinctly proposed their pretences, and given a clear, short and rational answer to them. Vitus Erbermannus a Jesuit and public Professor at Mentz, has lately published an Answer to Amesius, Printed at Herbipolis, 1661. two Vol. Octavo. But, omnia cum fecit Thaida Thais olet.  
3. Andreae Riveti Catholicus Orthodoxus, etc. It is extant in his Works, Roterod. 1652. in French, Saumur, 1616. Lat. 2 Tom. 4 to. Lugd. Bat. 1630. He well and fully handles all Popish Controversies.  
4. Chamierus Contractus seu Panstratiae Catholicae Dan. Chamieri Epitome per Frid. Spanhemium, one Vol. Fol. Gen. 1645. This is more full and large than the former, and may supply their brevity and omissions.  
5. When there is necessity of farther satisfaction in any Question, our Great Men, Jewel, Raynolds, John White, Whitaker, Laud, Chillingworth, and others before named may be consulted; for none have opposed Rome with more Learning and Success, than those.  
To these may be added such as have examined and confuted the Council of Trent. As,  
1. Chemnitii Examen Concil. Trident, Erancof. 1578.  
2. Examen Concil. Trident. por Innocentium Gentilletum, Genev. 1586. Octavo.  
3. Anatome Concil. Trident. Historico Theolog. cum Historia Concil. Trident. per Thuanum & Vindiciis pro P. Suavo Polano, contra Scipionem Henricum, per Joh. Hen. Heideggeum, Tom. 2. Octavo. Tiguri, 1672. More such Writers there are, but Chemnitius is best.  
26. For a short comprehension of Popish Controversies, how they explain and state them, we are told (to name one or two who have writ Enchiridia, Epitomes, or Summaries of their Controversies, and how the hold them) I say we are told what their Opinions are, and the Explications of them in such Books as these.  
1. Manuale Controversiarum per Mart. Becanum, Herbipol. 1623.  
2. Or if that be too large a Work, than we may consult his Enchiridion Manualis Controversiarum hujus Temporis, etc. Duact, 1631. He has Controversiae Lutheranorum, 1. 2. Calvinistarum. 3. Anabaptistarum. 4. Politicorum, etc.  
3. Enchiriaion Controversiarum per Fran. Costerum Jes. Col. 1587. & postea Turnoni, 1591.  
4. Controversiae generales Fidei contra Infideles omnes; (He puts all Protestants in that Catalogue) Octavo. Par. 1660.  
27. And because Scripture is urged on all sides, and there are passages in it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in appearance contradictory; 'twill be convenient to know some of those Authors as have writ Explicationes & Conciliationes Locorum difficilium. For instance, such as these.  
1. Frid. Spa●●●●ii dubia Evangelica, Tom. 3. Quarto. the first Tome Printed at Genev. 1634. The second and third, 1639.  
2. Guilford Estius in Loca Scripturae difficiliora, Fol. Duaci. 1629. A considerate and Learned Man, and explains many places well; but being sworn, as all their ecclesiastics are, to maintain all the received Doctrine, etc. of the Church of Rome, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he does sometimes explain places so, as may make most for the defence and interest of the Church of Rome.  
3. Symphonia ●rophetarum & Apostolorum, etc. à Joh. Schorpio, Quarto. Genevae, 1625.  
4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seu contradictiones apparentes Sacrae Scripturae, etc. Ven. 1645. Duodec.  
5. Vindicatio Locorum praecipuorum V Test. à Corruptelis Pontificiorum (Praecipuè Bellarmini) Calvinistarum; (he was a Learned Man, and a fierce Lutheran) Photinianorum, etc. Oct. Gissae 1620. per Helvicum.  
6. Conciliationes Locorum S. Scripturae in specie pugnantium ex Libris Augustinis per Ludou. Rabum, Quarto, Noriburgae, 1561.  
7. Harmonia totius Scripturae seu conciliatio locorum Scripturae, etc. per Mich. Walthaeum, Octavo. Argent. 1621. He was a Lutheran.  
8. Conciliationes S. Scripturae per Andr. Athalmenum, Quarto. Norib. 1561. Many more such Writers there are, but these may be sufficient, etc.  

For the Original parts and use of the Canon Law, read Duck. de Vsu & Authoritate Juris Civilis Romanorum, lib. 1. cap. 7. de Jure Canonico, p. 39 Edit. Lond. 1653.  28. Amongst other things, a convenient knowledge of the Canon Law will be necessary; Books of this kind are exceeding many; but, amongst others, these following will be necessary.  
1. Institutiones Juris Canon. per Paul. Lancelottum cum casibus Joh. Baptistae Bartolini, Octavo. Colon. 1609.  
2. Arnoldi Corvini Jus Canonicum per Aphorismos strict. explicat. Amstel. 1651. Octavo. This, for brevity, method, perspicuity, may be more useful (at first) for a Divine, than the aforesaid Institutions.  
3. Corpus Juris Canonici cum Accessione Novar. Constitution. Summorum Pontificum & Annotat. Ant. Naldi, Ludg. 1661. Quarto. This is the last and best Edition of the Corpus Juris Canonici, and contains many useful things which are not in any former Edition.  
4. If the aforesaid former Edition cannot be had, then Corpus Juris Canon. at Paris 1618. Folio. is the next in Time and Goodness.  
5. Corp. Juris Canon. cum Glossis, Par. 1612. cum Indice Stephani Daoyes; it consists of four Vol. Fol.  
6. 'Tis very useful to have some Old Edition of the Canon Law with the Gloss, as that at Par. 1519. 3 Vol. Quarto. or any other Edition before the year 1572. For since that time many things are left out of the Gloss which were in before.  
7. Censurae in Glossas Juris Canonici, Colon. 1672. where what is to be left out of the Gloss is distinctly set down.  
He who has a general knowledge of this Law, and has the body of the Law with the Gloss, knows how to turn the Books, and find places cited: A few Books more will be a great advantage and help to him to perfect that knowledge (so far as a Divine may be concerned in it:) amongst many such as these.  
1 Joh. Cardinal. de Turrecremata in Decretum Gratiani.  
2. Abbas Panormitanus in Decretales, etc.  
3. Conclusionum Practicarum in Juris utroque foro, Tom. 8. Fol. per Card. Tuscum, Lugd. 1634. The whole Work is in an Alphabetical way like a Law Dictionary, and things easy to be found in it.  
4. Epitome Juris Pontificii Veteris per Autonium Augustinum, Fol. Romae. 1614 aut Par. 1641. It is divided into three parts. 1. De Personis. 2. De Judiciis. 3. De Rebus, etc. He has a Catalogue of the Pope's Councils, Collectors of the Canons, and his Censure of them; a Book of exceeding great use, and indeed Bibliotheca Juris rather than the single Book.  
last; Some Law Lexicon will be necessary to explain the Law Terms, and many Ecclesiastical words which occur in the Ancient Canons, Histories, Councils, and Ecclesiastical Writers, Gr. Lat Many such there are; I shall name only two, which I believe most useful; As,  
1. For the Greek, Glossarium Graeco-Barbarum Jo. Meursii, Quarto. Ludg. Bat. 1614  
2. For Latin, Lexicon Juridicum Juris Caesarei Canonici per Joh. Calvinium J. Christum, Genev. 
(a) Notand. many things in this Lexicon are damned, and to be expunged by the command of the Inquisitors in the Spanish and Portugal Indices; sed salva res est; this Edition has escaped the Popish Purgatory. Vid. Indicem Expurgat. Hispan. Madriti, 1667. p. 570. & Indicem Olysipone, 1624. p. 742.  1640. which Edition has escaped the Inquisitors Fury.  
Tho' these may be ordinarily sufficient, yet there may be, on many occasions, use for more; such as,  
1. Lexicon Juris per Sim. Schardium, Fol. Col. Agr. 1600.  
2. Vocabulum utriusque Juris, per Alexand. Scol. Octavo. Lugd. 1622. 3. Notitia vocab. Ecclesiastici, etc. Ravolta da Domenico, Magri, etc. Romae, 1650. 'Tis partly Latin, and partly Italian.  
4. Glossae P. Pithaei Capitulis Caroli magni praefixae, Par. 1640.   

Civil Law. 

For a general knowledge of the Civil Law, it's Original Parts and Books, these you may peruse,  
1. Ridley's View of the Civil Law, Quarto.  
2. Dr. Ducks first Book De Vsa & Authoritate Juris Civilis, Lond. 1655. Octavo.    
29. The knowledge of the Civil Law is also exceeding useful for a Divine; and to say nothing of the litigious part of it in Foro Contentioso, to attain a competent understanding of it, such Books as these;  
1. Elementa Juris, per Joh. Arnold. Corvinum, Amstel. 1645. In Duodecimo. Justinian's Institutions should be read with it, etc.  
2. For a fuller Explication of Justinians Institutions, it will be convenient to have,  
1. Joachim Mynsingerus.  
2. Joh. Scheidewinus; both have writ well on the Institutions; but Scheidewinus later, and more fully, and in many things more useful for a Divine.  
3. Theophili Antecessoris Institutiones, Gr. Lat. cum Scholiis Faberti, & Notis Curtij, Quarto. Par. 1638.  
4. Corpus Juris Civilis, 2 Vol. Octavo. per Dion. Gothofredum, 1614 Or, which is far better, Corpus Juris Civitis, Par. 1612.  
5. Codex Theodosianus cum perpetuis Commentariis Jac. Gothofredi, in 6 Vol. Fol. Lugd. 1665. In which there are many Titles which concern Ecclesiastical matters: For instance, De Summâ Trinitate Catholicâ, de Sacrosanctis Ecclesis, etc. de Episcopis & Clericis; de Episcopali Audientia; de Haereticis Manichaeis & Samaritis, ne Sanctum Baptisma iteretur; de Judaeis; de Apostatis, etc. and many such more. Now if we consider the Antiquity of those Laws, and Gothofred's most Learned Commentary and Explications of them, it must be confessed that the knowledge of them will be very useful for a Divine.  
6. For Law Lexicons, to explain the Terms of this Law, Calvini & Schardii Lexica Juridica, or one of them; Calvin is more useful, and will be sufficient as to most Latin words 
(a) Vid. Bar. Br●ssonii de verborum quae ad Ju● pertinent significatione Libros 19 Par. 1596. Folio; an excellent work. Alciate and Joh. Goeddaeus have writ well on the same Subject, Oct. both. And after them Arnoldus Cortinus very well, Oct. Amstel. 1646. One, or all of these may be consulted.  in that Law. And for the Greek, besides Meursius his Glossary, you may consult, 1. Rigaltii Glossarium, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, de verborum significatione quae Novellis Imperatorum Orientis post Justinianum regnabant, Quarto. Lut. 1601. 2. Glossae Veteres verborum Juris in Basilicis per Card Labbaeum, Par. 1606. in calce emendat. & observat. in Synops, Basilic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
7. There is one Title in the Law of great use in Divinity, as well as Policy and Civil Prudence, and that is 
(b) Libro 5. Digest. Tit. 17.  de Regulis Juris Antiqui; it contains above two hundred Maxims of Law and Reason, so many Principles and Axioms of greatest Evidence and Authority, being great Truths Universally received in the Roman Empire (Pagan and Christian) by Divines as well as Statesmen and Lawyers. And because there is hardly any Rule so Universal but it may admit of some exception or limitations so those Regulae Juris have been cautiously and learnedly explained by several eminent Lawyers: Such as, De Regulis juris Scripserunt. 

1. Everand. Broncherst. 12. Lugd. Bat. 1641. one of the last and best.  
2. Jac. Cujaci●js, Octavo. Basil. 1594.  
3. Pet. Fa●er Lugd. 1590.  
4. Philippus Decius (cum additionibus) Octavo. Lugd. 1601.     

De Indicibus Expurgat.  
30. It will be of great use for a Divine to be acquainted with the Roman Inquisitor's Arts (impious Knavery and Fraud) in purging and correcting (corrupting) Authors in all Arts and Faculties, (s●me of the Fathers not excepted;) for this purpose we may consult,  
1. The Pope's 
(c) V●d. Plures ●●n●isi●●m constitationes de Libris expurgandis in Ballario Che●●i●i, In Ind●●● Ballarii ●●tatas verbo ●●●i Prohibiti.  Bulls about their expurgatory Indices, as first, the Bulls of Pius 4. 1564. In Bullario Cherubini Rom. 1638. Tom. 2. pag. 81, 82.  
2. That of Clement 8. 1595 In the same Bullarii ●om. 3. p. 37, 38. Vid. Ibi citata de Congregatione Indicis, That is a congregation of Cardinals who consulted about perfecting the Index Expurgatorius.  
2. For the Rules and Directions given the Inquisitors for prohibiting what Books they pleased, we have them (as given by the Authority of the Trent Council) in the end of some Editions 
(d) Vid. Council ●●id●●t. Antwerp. 1633 Octavo. I●ca●ce Post Indic●●, and in the Editition by ●abbe Par. 1667 p. 230, 231, etc.  of that Council. For the Indices expurgatorii themselves, 'twill be of very great use to have one or more of them (for there are many) and if possible of their own Editions; amongst those we have,  
1. Index Tridentinus published by themselves at the end of those Editions of the Trent Council, named here in the Margin and many times elsewhere.  
2. Index Hispanicus Madriti, 1612. Fol. Several other Editions there 
(e) Madrit. 157●, 1584. & Salmurii 1601. & Madriti 1614 1628. & Hispali, 1632. & Madriti iterum, 1640.  are, both before and since that time; that which is beyond all others most complete and useful, is that Madriti ex Typographaeo Didaci Diaz. Fol. 1667. In which we have four or five thousand Authors damned absolutely, or to pass (with a Purgation) corrected, not amended but corrupted. 
(f) Si Episcopus Presbyter aut Diaconus Chart am falsaverit, aut falsum Testimonium dixerit, deponatur, In Monasterium detrudatur. & quam diu vixerit Laicam tantumm●ò communionem acc●piat. Concil. Agathense (Agathae in Gallâ Narbonensi Celebratum) 506. Ca●. 50.   
3. Index Libr. Prohib. Alexandri 7. Jussu Edit. Rom. 1664, & 1665. extat etiam 1667. Fol. In this last Edition the Index Tridentinus is joined with it, and many Decrees of the Congregatio Judicii (wherein they name particularly and censure Books) which elsewhere I find not extant. 
Some of the●e Decrees are extant in a Book with this Title, L●b●●●m post Indices C●●●●tis 8. prohibitorum Decreta omnia hact●●us Edita Romae. 1624. Octavo. It is bound up with the Index Librorum Prohibit. Romae, 159●. Octavo.   
4. The Portugal Index Olysipone, 1624. in Folio. Continet 1. Indicem Romanum. 2. Indicem Prohibitorum Lusitaniae. 3. Indicem Expurg. à p. 195. Vid. Paparum Bullas ex Librorum Expurgandoram Regulis ibidem in Principio antè Indicem.  
5. Index Expurgator. juxta council. Trident. Decretum Philippi. 2 Regis Catholici jussu, Albani Ducis consilio ac Ministerio in Belgio concinnatus 1571. & a Fran. Junio Editus, 1586. Vid. Epist. Dedicatoriam & Praefat. Junii Diploma Regis Catholici & praefationem B. Ariae Montani dicto Indici praefix●.  
Lastly, I would commend four Authors to you. 1. Historia Conciliorum Generalium in 4 Libros distributa, Authore Ed. Richero Doctore Sorbonico. Printed at Colon. 1680. and again at Colon. 1683.  
2. Joh. Launoii Parisiensis Theol. Epistolae in eight parts or volumes. They are both Sorbon Doctors and yet boldly and learnedly Writ against very many Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome.  
Some one (or more) of these will be very useful, where it is to be observed,  
1. That in their Indices, Authors and Books are distinguished into three Classes.  
1. In the first Class; The Books and Authors too are damned; in this are all Heretics, amongst which all Protestants are reckoned, and all their Books writ of Religion. 2. In the second Class Books damned but not their Authors; when the Authors are Catholics, and yet their Books absolutely forbid. 3. In the third Class such Books writ by Papists or Protestants, as being purged may pass. By this we may come to know, 1. the best Books (i. e.) Those condemned by them, Magnum aliquid Bonum est quod a Nerone damnatur.  
2. By considering their Indices we come to know the best Editions of many good Books, for they name the Edition of every Book to be purged: so that if we have that Edition they name, (or any before) we are sure it has not been in their Purgatory, etc. nor (by putting in or leaving out) corrupted Editions.  
3. Their Indices Expurgatorii (for that use we may make of them) are very good and Common-Place Books and Repertories, by help of which we may presently find, what any Author (by them censured) has against them. It is but going to their Index and by it we are directed to the Book, Chapter, and Line, where any thing is spoke against any Superstition or Error of Rome; so that he who has the Indices unless Idle or Ignorant) cannot want testimonies against Rome.  
I beg your pardon for this tedious, and (I fear) impertinent discourse. I have not had time to read it ●ver again (to correct mistakes) and may be you may lose time if you do; but I dare and do 〈◊〉 trust you with all mine infirmities being well assured that as your great judgement will soon find, so your no less candour can (and will) pardon my errors and (not wilful mistakes: sure I am this (however rude) scribble, may be some little evidence (though not of my ability yet) of a great desire and willingness to serve you: If you desire to see any of the aforementioned Authors, you may command and have the sight, and use of them (some very few excepted;) for they are in the possession of  
Sir, Your Affectionate Friend and Faithful Servant. T. Barlow.   

Sir,  
Having lately heard from you, how you desire that I should further give you lumen de Lumine about the Socinian and Arminian controversies and the Writers pro and con, you may take an account thereof as followeth, viz.   

Syllabus Quaestionum praecipuarum, quae inter Socinianos', reliquosque Ecclesiae reformatae, simulac Pontificiae Theologos ventilantur.  
Quaest. 1. An sit Trinitas personarum in Vnitate Essentiae? Neg.  
Q. 2. An Christus sit Deus? Neg.  
Queen 3. An Spiritus Sanctus sit Deus? Neg.  
Qu. 4. An Fides credat aliquid quod est contra vel super rationem? Neg.  
Qu. 5. An Christus sit Legislator? Aff.  
Qu. 6. An Patres sub antiquo foedere promissiones tantum temporales habuerunt? Aff. Soc.  
Qu. 7. An Patres sub Veteri Testam. in Christum credebant, vel in eum credere tenebantur? Neg.  
Qu. 8. An Deus sub N. Foedere tantum revelavit se justificare impium. Aff. Soc.  
Qu. 9 An Eucharistia sit ullo modo instituta in Fidei confirmationem, aut peccati remissionem? Neg.  
Qu. 10. An Baptismus sit solum S●gnum exterius, & ad Regenerationem nihil conducens? Aff.  
Qu. 11. An Vita Aeterna aut donum Spiritus Sancti piis sub antiquo Foedere promittebatur? Neg.  
Qu. 12. An ad credendum Evangelio Spiritûs Sancti dono interiori opus sit? Neg.  
Qu. 13. An Christus moriendo pro nobis satisfecerit? Neg.  
Qu. 14. An Fides Salvifica sit Obedientia Vniversalis Praeceptis Dei & Christi praestita? Aff.  
Qu. 15. An in homine post lapsum lib●rum arbitrium sit integrum, nec omninò vitiatum, quin obedientiam Praeceptis Dei integram praestet? Aff.  
Qu. 16. An sit peccatum Originale?  
Qu. 17. An Adamus in statu integritatis fuerit mortalis? Aff.  
Qu. 18. An Christus Virtute suâ resurrexit, an solùm virtute Patris? Aff. Soc. quod solùm virtute Patris, N. suâ.  
Qu. 19 An Christus habet idem Corpus nunc in Patria, in quo passus est, & resurrexit? Neg. Soc.  
Qu. 20. An Sancti eadem habebunt in Coelo Corpora quae in solo & Sepulchro habuere? Neg. Soc.  
Qu. 21. An in antiquo Foedere per Sacrificia illa legalia, peccata minora, & infirmitatis, duntaxat expiabantur, & in novo solùm peccata graviora? Affirm. Socin.  
Qu. 22. An in V Foedere peccata expiabantur quoad poenam temporalem, in novo solùm quoad paenam temporalem & aeternam? Aff. Soc.  
Qu. 23. An Chrisus fuerat Sacerdos antequam in Coelos ascenderat? Neg.  
Qu. 24. An Infants sunt baptizandi. Neg.  
Qu. 25. An singularis aliqua missio requiratur in Ministris Evangelii? Neg.  
Qu. 26. An Adam primo statu Innocentiae scilicet, cum Justitia Originali creabatur? Neg.  
Qu. 27. An ulla sit Patrum aut Conciliorum autoritas in rebus Fidei determinandis? Neg.  
Qu. 28. An Fides justificans non sit purum putum Dei donum, sed viribus Naturalibus acquiri possit? Aff. Soc.  
Qu. 29. An Magistratus Christianus maleficos morte puniat? Neg.  
Qu. 30. An Pii defuncti Coelo & beatitudine fruantur ante diem Judicii? Neg  
Qu. 31. An homo lumine naturali Deum cognoscat? Neg.  
Qu. 32. An Deus futura contingentia certò cognoscat? Neg. Soc.  
Qu. 33. An Christus fuerat Dominus & Rex ante Resurrectionem? Neg.  
Qu. 34. An Christus Sacrificium pro seipso obtulit? Aff.  
Qu. 35. An omnis Dogma in Ecclesiam inferens, vel Fidem Vniversam ejusve partem Essentialem tollens, sit Haereticus? Aff. Soc.  
Qu. 36. An Christus licet non sit Deus sit Cultu Divino adorandus? Aff.  
Qu. 37. An Paulus ad Rom. 7. à versu 7. ad finem Capitis, de seipso loquatur an irregenito● Neg. Sociniani Paulum de seipso loqui.  
Qu. 38. An Christus ante mortem ullum Dominium in Angelos habuit? Neg.  
Qu. 39 An Christus promisit Ecclesiae perseverantiam in Fide? Neg.  
Qu. 40. An Sacramenta conferant gratiam? N.  
Qu. 41. An mendacium aliquod sit licitum? Aff. Socin.  
Qu. 42. An bellum offensivum vel defensivum sit Christianis licitum? Neg. Socin.   

Quaest. 1. HAnc Quaest. negant Sociniani. Socinus ipse, Institut. Brevissim. p. 9, 10. Idem Animadvers. in assertionem 6. Col. Posnamiensis, p. 43. & passim per totum Practatum illum, ut in Defence. Animado. contra Gabrielem Eutropium Cateches. R●co●iensis, de cognition Dei, cap 1. Volleglius passim. Crellius de Deo, & A●cributis, Volkelio de vera Religione praefixus. Gostavius à Bebelno Disp. De persona, & idem Libro Keckermanno opposito, de Trinitate. Vide etiam fragmentum Socini de Trinitate. Smalcius in Refutat. Thesium Jac. Shepperi de Trinitate, & in Resp. ad Hes. Ravensperg. de Mysterio Trinitatis, & praecipuè Jo. Crellius de uno Deo Patre, per totum.  
Q. 2. Catech. Racou. de cognition Dei, cap. 1. p. 47. & pag. 126, 127. Instit. Brevis. c. 2. p. 5. etc. 5. p. 9 Smalcius in Refutat. Thesium Wolfong. Frantzii, Socinus de Essentia Christi contra Volanum Joh. Stoienski in relatione, disp. de Divinitate Christi, Smalcius contra Smiglesium de vero Dei filio.  
Q. 3. Catech. Racoviensis. De Proph. Christi munere, c. 6. p. 213. Smalcius in Refut. Thes. Wolf. Frantzii, disp. 1. p. 7, 8. Socinus in Refut. lib. Wieki de Divinitate Christi & Spiritus Sancti.  
Q. 4. Smalcius contra Smiglesium de vero Dei Filio, cap. 6. p. 46. Meisnerum vide in Isid. Theolog. Photinian, c. 4. p. 306, 307.  
Q. 5. Cat. Racoviens. p. 132. Legislatorem illum volunt, non solum quod Leges Evangelicas tulit, sed quod aliquid Decalogo addidit. Institut. Brevis. cap. 11. p. 27, 28. Socinus in Resp. ad Object. Vtri Object. 11. p. 85. etc.  
Q. 6. Catech. Racou. p. 136. Vide Hug. Grotium in explicatione Decalogi, p. 70, 71. Socinus de convenientia & disconvenientia V. & N. Testamenti, p. 32.  
Q. 7. Catech. Racoviens. de Christi munere Proph. c. 11. p. 271. Socin. tractatus de conven. & disconven. Veteris & Novi Testam. inter Tractatus ejus breves, p. 31. Jer. Schlichtingium in Vers. 6 c. 11. ad Heb. Socinus Epist. 3 ad Math. Raderium, p. 137, 138. Smalcius contra Smiglesium de Satisfactione Christi, cap. 10.  
Q. 8. Vide Smalcium contra Smiglesium de Satisfact. cap 10. p. 237. Vide fragment. Socini de Justif. p. 47.  
Q. 9 Catech. Racou. p. 187, 188. Vide Socinum Tract. brevi de Coena Domini, & Resp. ejus ad Epist. Niemojevii de usu & fine Coenae.  
Q. 10. Catech. Racou. de Prophetico Christi munere, c. 4. p. 197. Instit. Brev. c. 17. Soc. in Ep. 3. ad Math. Raderium, p. 127, 128.  
Q. 11. P. 202. Crellius Respons. ad Hug. Grotium de Satisfact. Christi, c. 1. p 30.  
Q. 12. Catech. Racou. de Prophetico Christi munere, c. 6. p. 212. Soc. de Libero hominis arbitrio & Divina predestinatione inter tractat. breves. F. Socini, p. 31, 32.  
Q. 13. Catech. Racou. de Prophetico Christi munere, c. 8. p. 221. ad 228. Mich. Gittichius contra Ludovium Lucium de Satisfactione. Crellius contra Hugonem Grotium de Satisfactione Christi. Socin. Instit. Brevis. p. 75. alii passim.  
Q. 14. Catech. Racou. de munere Christi Prophetico, c. 9 p. 246, 247. Socinus in Animadv. ad Joh. Niemojevii Scriptum de Christo Servatore, p. 38. Inter Tracat. breves Socini, Tract. 6. Smalcius in Refutat. Thesium Wolf. Frantzii, disp. 4. ad Thes. 2. & add Thes. 94. & disp. 7. ad Thesin Frantzii 6.  
Q. 15 Cat. Racou. de Christi munere Prophetico, c. 10. p. 249. Instit. brevis. c. 19 p 57 Volkelius de vera Religione, de lib. arbit. Socinus in Tractat. brevibus Tract. 4. qui est de lib. arbitrio.  
Q. 16. Cat. Racou. de Christi munere Prophetico, cap. 10. p. 249. Smalcius in Refut. Smiglesii de Erroribus novorum Arrianorum, c. 12. l. 1. p. 116, 117. Videses brevem Disputationem Theolog. Photinianae per Baltharem Meisnerum, Art. 3. de peccato Originis, p. 679.  
Q. 17. Socinus contra Fran. Punium, p. 54, 57, 228. alibi Osterodius in Institutionibus Germanicis, p. 270. c. 33. Vide Joh. Winterum Naumburgensem contra Socinum. Quaest. Theolog. An Adamus in statu Innocentiae fuerat Naturâ mortalis, p. 1, 2, 3. & per totum Socin. praelectiones, cap. 1. & Junium in refutatione praelectionum.  
Q. 18. Catech. Racou. p. 276.  
Q. 19 Catech. Racou. de Officio Christi Regio, p. 281.  
Q. 20. Catech. Racou. ubi supra.  
Q. 21. Catech. Racou. de munere Christi Sacerdotali, p. 287.  
Q. 22. Catech. Racou. ubi supra.  
Q. 23. Cat. Racou. de Christi munere Sacerdotali, p. 291. Schlichting. in Hebraeos, c. 8. v. 4. Socini Themata vide inter breves Tractatus ejus, Them. 4. p. 3.  
Q. 24. Cat. Rac. de Prophetico Christi munere, c. 4. De Baptismo, p. 145, 146. Institut. brevis. c. 17. De Baptismo, p. 52.  
Q. 25. Cat. Rac. de Essentia Christi, c. 2. p. 305. Joh Volkelius in Resp. ad Mart. Smiglesii vanam refutationem dissolutionis nodi Gordii & in Notis ad Smiglesii refutationem, etc.  
Q. 26. Socinus praelectionum suarum, cap. 3. Vide Andream Rivet. in 1 Cap Gen. Exercit. 9 p. 46. Col. 2.  
Q. 27. Valentinus Smalcius in Refutat. duorum Librorum Smigles. l. 1. c. 3. p. 25. ego vero tui Mundi totius & Vulgi fidelium nullam rationem habendam esse dico. Faust Socin. Epist. 3. ad Mat. Raderium, p. 115. cum de Patribus & Conciliis nonnulla superciliosè satis pro more suo perorasset, subjungit, tamen ista Omuta nullas Vires p●aet●rea apud homines Cordatos hab●re debeant.  
Q. 28. Faust. Socin. in Resp. ad Objection. Cuteni, ad Object. 5. Inter breves Tract. Socini, p. 83. Idem in discursu de causa Fidei, inter breves Tractatus Socini, p. 90. Idem de Christo Servatore parte 4. cap. 12. & Epist. 3. ad Math. Raderium p. 107. Vide sis Erasmum Brochmannum Theologiae Vniversalis Systemat. Tom 2. Art. 5. Qu. 14. p. 446. & Epist. Hilarii & Prosperi. praefix. Libro de Praedestinatione Sanctorum.  
Q. 29. Socin. Tractat. de Officio Christi, inter Tract. ejus breves Tract. 1. Them. 13, 14. Vid. Apolog. Remonstrantium, seu Examen Censurae, c. 24. p. 259.  
Q. 30. Faustus Socin. in Respons. ad Object. Cut. ad Object. 23. p. 89.  
Q. 31. Faust. Socinus Praelect. Theolog. cap. 2. p. 3 4, 5. Vide Johannem Junium Ecclesiae Sylvaeducentis Pastorem in Refut. c. 2. Praelect. F. Socini, p. 27.  
Q. 32. Anonym. in cap. 5. priora Mat. ad versum 28. cap. 5. Crellius de Deo, Johan. Volkelio de vera Religione prefixus, l. 1. c. 24. p. 198. Smalcius in Refutat. Thesium Wolfong. Frantzii, Disp. 12. p. 427. Vide sis Fredericum Spanhemium Dub. Evang. 33. p. 272.  
Q. 33. Faust. Socinus i● 〈◊〉 mad●. ad assertionem 23. Coll. Posnamiensis, p. 87, 88  
Q. 34. Socinus in Praelect. p. 186. Vide Joh. Winterun. 〈◊〉 refutatione F. Socini de Justificatione, p. 104.  
Q. 35. Theophilus Nicol●ide● in Brevi Refutat. Tractatus d● Ecclesia & missione Ministrorum, per Alb. Borkowski, p. 3. ubi ●a●c habet verba, Nos Haereticum eum dicimus, qui talia dogmata in Christi Ecclesiam insert, quae vel Vniversam Fidem Christi, vel partem ejus potissimam & Essentialem, vel (ut aliis verbis idem dicamus) quae vel veram Dei & Christi gloriam, vel veram Pietatem tollunt.  
Q. 36 Valent. Smalcius in Refutat. lib. duorum Smiglesis de Erroribus novor. Arrianor. l. 1. c. 3. p. 23. & cap. 7. p. 46. & cap. 9 p. 65.  
Q. 37. Prosper Dysidaeus in Cap. 7. add Roman. (nempe Sociniensis erat) Edit. Anno 1595. Socinus in defence disputat. P. Dysidaei (nempe suae) adversus reprehensiones N. N. Racoviae 1628.  
Q. 38. Valent. Smalcius in Refutat. M. Smiglesii de Erroribus Novorum Arrianorum, l. 2. cap. 4. p. 209.  
Q. 39 Valent. Smalcius in Refutat. duorum lib. M. Smiglesi● de Erroribus Novorum Arrianorum. In Catalogo Errorum Smiglesii, Errore 81.  
Q. 40. Smalcius ubi supra inter Errores M. Smiglesii per se enumeratos. Errore 76.  
Q. 41. Vide Johan. Volkelium de vera Religione, l. 4. c. 19 p. 286. Cat. Rac. de Christi munere Prophetico, cap. 1.  
Q. 42. Vide Themata F. Socini de Officio Christi, Them. 24. p. 7. Inter breves Tractat. F. Socini Vid. Faust. Socin. Epist. 2. ad Christoph. Morstium inter Epist. ejus, p. 498.  
Sufficiat hic Quaest. Socinian. Catalogue. utpote generalis Controversiarum illarum Index & Syllabus, reliquae harum alicui facilè reducendae. Sat novi e quaestionibus hisce unamquamque aliarum Matrem esse satis foecundam, & si ad minutias quasque singulares quis descenderet, sobolem satis numerosam inveniet. Sic nonnulli Quaest. 13. de Satisfactione Christi in quaestiones particulares 5. dividunt.  
1. An in Justificatione peccata nostra sine Satisfactione, nudâ remissione deleantur? Aff.  
2. An Deus sic potuit condonare? Aff.  
3. An Pietas nostra Deo satisfaciat, nos●ue justificet? Aff.  
4. An Deus voluit pe●cata nostra sine satisfactione condonare? Aff.  
5. An Christus pro nobis satisfecerit? Neg.  
Quaestiones has omnes modo assignato tuetur F. Socinus, ut videre est in praelection. Theolog. c. 15. etc. Vide Joh. Winterum Naumburgensem in Refutat. Socim de Just. p. 3. Edit. Lipsiae. Ann. 1617.   

Tota inter Remonstrantes & Contra-Remonstrantes controversia ad articulos 5. a Theologis passim reducitur, sc.  
1. DE Electione & Reprobatione, seu de Dei decretis in ordine ad hominem salvandum damnandumve?  
2. De morte Christi, ejusque latitudine, an ad omnes absolutè extendatur.  
3. De Natura gratiae Divinae.  
4. De sufficientia & irresistibilitate gratia.  
5. De perseverantia sanstorum.  
Ad haec quinque capita Quaestiones subsequentes (aliaeque minutiores plurimae quas scientes omnifimus) sunt referendae.  
Art. 1. Quest. 1.  
An decretum electionis sit absolutum? Aff. Vide collationem Hagiensem p. 50: ad thesin 1. etc. & p. 106 ad alteram partem.  
Art. 1. Quest. 2.  
An decretum Reprobationis sit absolutum? Aff. vide collat Hag. p. 125. De toto primo articulo vide brevem ejus expositionem in calce Collat. Hag. p. 464. etc.  
An deus pro absoluto suo dominio potest creaturam innocentem cruciare, Aff. vide Stephani Curcellaei vindicias quibus suam & Arminii sententiam de jure Dei in creaturas, adversus Amyraldum propugnat. Anno 1645. 8.  
Art. 1. Quest. 3.  
An Electio sit actus misericordiae, Reprobatio justitiae? Neg,  
An praestat Non esse quam miserum esse? Aff.  
Art. 1. Quest. 4.  
An sit decretum generale de salvandis fidelibus, decreto particulari de singulis quibusdam personis salvandis praevium? Neg Vide Amesii Coronidem ad Collat. Hag. Art. 1. cap. 1. pag. 1. & Arminium in thes. private. disp. 41. Thesi 1. & Collat. Hag. p. 88, 89.  
Art. 1. Quest. 5.  
An ulla detur infantium Electio? Aff. vide Amesii Coronidem ad Collat. Hag. Art. 1. cap. 1. § 2. pag. 3. & Nic. Grevinchovium, pag. 136, 150.  
Art. 1. Quest. 6.  
An praedestinatio non solum ad finem (Gloriam) sed & ad media (Gratiam) terminetur? Aff. Vide G. Amesii Coron. Art. 1. cap. 1. §. 3. pag. 4. Collat. Hagiensem, p. 77. §. 4. etc.  
Art. 1. Quest. 7.  
An Non solum fides, sed & bona opera sin● conditio in decreto electionis praerequisita, & electioni praecedanea? Neg. Vide G. Ames● Coron. Art. 1. cap. 1. §. 4. p. 5.  
Art. 1. Quest. 8.  
An mediatio Christi sit fundamentum & causa Electionis? Neg. Vide G. Amesium in Coronide, c. 1. Art. 1. §. 5. p. 6.  
An Cujusque vitae terminus sit immutabiliter praestitutus? Aff. Vide Joh. Beverovitium de termino vitae fatali, an mobili? Lugd. Batav. 1636. 4to. & Ejusdem partem tertiam Lug. Bat. 1639. 4to.  
Art. 2. Quest 9  
An Christus pro omnibus & singulis mortuus sit & Redemptionem impetraverit? Neg.  
Vide Amesium in Coronide. Art. 2. cap. 1. Collat. Hagiens. p. 130 and p. 145, 146, & 157, & 203. De toto art. 2. Vide Brevem expositionem ejus in calce Collat. Hag. p. 467, etc.  
Art. 2. Quest. 10.  
An in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Redemptionis deus silium morti, priusquam homines saluti, destinct? Neg.  
Vide Coronid. Amesii, art. 2. c. 1. p. 96. Collat. Hagierf. p. 127, 128, etc.  
Art. 2. Quest. 11.  
An notitia Evangelii ad t●●●m mundum pervenerit? Neg. Vide The Pagans Debt and Dowry, by J. Goodwin.  
Art. 3. Quest. 12.  
An ex Contra-Remonstr●●tum hypothesi deus sit author peccati? Neg. ●● 3. Art. Vide brevem ejus expositionem in calce Collatine Hagiens. p. 470.  
Art. 3. Quest. 13.  
Am omnes quos externè vocat deus per verbum, etiam internè vocat per spiritum? Neg.  
Art. 3. Quest. 14.  
An supposito quod non intendat Deus omnes salvare quos per verbum externè vocat, sit dissimulator? Neg. Vide Coll. Hag. p. 97, etc.  
Art. 3. Quest. 15.  
An deus creaturam Rationalem ad actus liberos effectiuè determinet, & an talis determinatio libertatem tollat? Aff. prius. neg. posterius.  
Art. 4. Quest. 16.  
An in opere conversionis operatio gratiae sit irresistibilis? Aff. Vide Collat. Hag. p. 216, 217, & 226, 227, & 237, & 269, 270. & vide brev●m expositionem 4. Articuli in Calce Collatine Hagiens. p. 470.  
Art. 4. Quest. 17.  
An deus gratiam sufficientem omnibus offerat? Neg.  
Art. 4. Quest. 18.  
An in conversione peccatoris operatio Dei sit solùm moraliter suadens, an & Physicè efficiens? Neg. prius. Aff. posterius.  
Art. 5. Quest. 19  
An vere justi aliquando totaliter aut finaliter excidant? Neg.  
Vide coronidem Amesii, Art. 5. p. 273. etc. Collat. Hagiens. p. 341, & 352, 353. & 401, 402. & de Art. 5. Vide Brevem ejus expositionem in calce Collatine Hagiens. p. 475.  
Quest. 20.  
An possit esse bonus usus naturalium ante gratiam, qui Deum ad convertendum moveat? Neg. Vide Collatine Hagiens. p. 226.   

De controversiis praedictis, melioris notae Scriptores nonnulli, cum occasio se obtulerit, consulendi.  
1. COllatio Hagiensis Scripto Hagoe. habita. Anno 1611. Linguâ Belgarum vernaculâ; & per Henricum Brandium latinè reddita & excusa Zirizaeae 1615. 40.  
2. Collatio Delphensis habita Delphis Batavorum, 1613. latinè facta per Henric. Brandium & excusa Middelburgi, Anno 1615. 40.  
3. Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem, per Amesium.  
4. Acta & Scripta Synodalia Dordracena Remonstrantium. Harderivic. 1620. 40. Vid. Acta Synodi Dordracenae.  
5. Jac. Arminii opera Lugd. Batav. An. 1629. 40.  
6. Censura quatuor Professorum Leidensium confess●onis & declarationis sententiae Remonstrantium, inscripta Deputatis ordinum Hollandiae & West frisiae.  
7. Apologia pro confession & declaratione sententiae Remonstrantium contra censuram Professorum Leidensium, Anno 1630. Quarto.  
8. Epistola delegatorum classis Walachrianae ad exteriarum ecclesiarum Reformatos Doctores, etc.  
9 Epistola Ecclesiasticorum quos in Belgio remonstrantes vocant, & opposita Epistolae praedictae. Lugd. Batav. 1617. Quarto.  
10. Anatome Arminianismi Pet. Molinaei, Quarto.  
11. Censura Anatomes Arminianismi Petri Molinaei per Joh. Arnoldum Corvinum Franc. ad Maenum, 1622. Quarto.  
12. Responsio Antonii Walaei ad censuram Arnoldi Corvini. Lugd. Batav. 1625. Quarto.  
13. Brevis & dilucida explicatio, doctrinae de Electione, Praedestinatione & Rebropatione, Authore Math. Archiepiscopo Eboracensi, cui accesserunt D. D. Estaei, Somi, Chatertoni, & Wille●i ejusdem argumenti Scripta, cum articulis etiam Lambethanis, Hardervici An. 1613. Octavo.  
14 Richardi Thomsoni diatriba de Amissione & intercisione Justificationis & gratiae, Octavo.  
15. De gratia & perseverantiâ sanctorum Exercitationes, quibus accessit animadversio in Rich. Thomsoni diatribam per Rob. Abbot Salisburiensem Episc. Francof. 1618. Octavo.  
16. Remonstrantium Semipelagianismus contra Hugonis Grotii pietatem (i. e. Librum Grotii, quem inscripsit, Ordinum Hollandiae & Westfrifiae pietas) per Gratianum Civilem, excud. Basili●●, An. 1616.  
17. Exercitationes Apologetica pro Divinâ gratiâ, etc. per Samuelem Rhaetorfortium, Amstel. 1636. Octavo.  
18. Andreae Riveti disputationes 13. de justâ & gratiosâ Dei desponsatione circa salutem generis humani, 1631. Octavo.  
19 Ejusdem synopsis doctrinae de natura & gratia, 1649  
20. Vide eundem Rivetum in Commentariis & Reliquis ejus Scriptis passim, ubi multa occurrunt contra Arminium doctè disputata.  
21. Vide etaim Nicolai Grevincharii, Simonis Episcopii, Festi Hommii, Petri Bertii, Guil. Twissi, Thom. Jacksonii, etc. Scripta, quibus (penè) omnibus de questionibus praedictis earumve aliquâ (Hommius & Twissus contra, reliqui pro Arminio) fuse disputant.  
22. Animadversions on a Treatise Entitled, God's love to Mankind, by John Davenant Bishop of Salisbury, Cambridge, 1641.  
23. Determinatio Quaestionum per eundem, Fol. ubi vari● Arminianorum placita  (more suo) ventilat; erat enim ingenii Scholastici vir, judicii subacti & perspicui, Synodo Do● dracenae praesens interfuit, controversiis h●s●● ver●atissimus, adeo ut inter nostrates superioress nullum habuit forte nec aequalem.  
24. Examen thesium Franc. Gomari de pred●●●atione per Jac. Arminium, Anno 1645. Oct●●●  
25. Andreae Riveti Epistolae Apologeticae contra Mos. Amyraldum de gratiâ Universali, 1648. Octavo.  
26. Frederici Spanhemii Epistola ad Cattierium de gratia Vniversali, 1648.  
27. Mosis Amyraldi specimen animadversionum adversus Spanhemium de Gratia Universali.  
28. Georg. Vellei ad Pamphilium Continium de specimine animadversionum Mosis Amyraldi Judicium 1649. Octavo.  
29. Johan. Dallaei Apologia pro duabus Ecclesiarum in Gallia protestantium Synodis nationalibus adversus Fred. Spanhemii exercitationes de Gratia Vniversali, 1655. Octavo.  
30. Fidei Mosis Amyraldi circa errores Arminianorum declaratio, An. 1646. Octavo.  
31. Dissertationes duae; prima de morte Christi quatenus ad omnes extendatur; secunda de Predestinatione & Reprobatione; per Joh. Davenantium Episcopum nuper Salisburiensem, Cantabr. 1650. Fol.  
32. Joh Gerrardi Vossii Historia Pelagiana, Quarto.  
33. Joh. Peltii harmonia Remonstrantium & Socinianorum, 1633. Quarto.  
34 Questiones hae passim occurrunt ventilatae apud Lutheranos; eorum precipui sunt, Gerrardus (locis Communibus) Chemnitius (in examine Concil. Trid.) Brochmannus (in Systemate Theologiae,) Eckardus (Pandectis controversiarum Religionis;) qui Remonstrantibus & Arminio favent. Calvinus suique sequaces Calvinistae ex adverso stant, ut passim videre est apud Calvinum (Institutionibus,) Bezam (in Rom. 9) Henricum Altingium (Io. 1. & 2. Scriptorum Theologicorum) Paulum Ferrium (vindiciis Scholasticè Orthodoxè,) Perkinsium, etc.  
35. Inter Pontificios Jesuitae pro Arminio, Domicani contra militant; Ideoque Suarez, Alvarez, reliquique (presertim ubi de auxiliis Divinae gratiae Scriptitant) consulendi sunt.  
36. Huc spectat celebris illa & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 controversia, tanto tempore & Partium zelo in Galliis pridem agitata inter Jansenii & Molinae sequaces; quorum high Arminio, illi Calvino, magis favent; eorum Scripta adversaria omnia penè prostant, Cognitu lectuque non indigna.   

Having now endeavoured to satisfy you with the Account of the Socinian and Arminian Tenets and Writers about the same, I shall comply in the next place with your desire of having my Thoughts about the Genealogy in St. Matthew.  
FOR the Genealogy Matth. 1. If you reckon from Abraham to David inclusiuè, there are fourteen Generations. If from Solomon to Jechonias inclusiuè, you have also fourteen Generations. But then if from thence to Christ) our blessed Saviour) inclusiuè, we have but thirteen Generations.  
1. 2. 3. 1. Abraham. 1. Solomon. 1. Salathiel. 2. Isaac. 2. Roboam. 2. Zorobabel. 3. Jacob. 3. Abia. 3. Abiud. 4. Judas. 4. Asa. 4. Eliakim. 5. Pharez. 5. Josaphat. 5. Azor. 6. Esrom. 6. Joram. 6. Sadoc. 7. Aram. 7. Ozias. 7. Achim. 8. Aminadab. 8. Joatham. 8. Eliud. 9 Naasson. 9 Achaz. 9 Eliazar. 10. Sa●mon. 10. Ezekias. 10. Matthan. 11. Booz. 11. Manasseh. 11. Jacob. 12. Obed. 12. Amon. 12. Joseph. 13. Jesse. 13. Josias. 13. Christus. 14. David. 14. Jechonias.   
To solve this doubt, (one Generation wanting) it is confessed that one Generation (incuria Amanuensium) is left out, ver. 11. For it is certain in the Old Testament. 1. That Jehoahaz 
(a) 2 Chron. 36. v. 7.  succeeded Josiah immediately, but he Reigning only three months is omitted by Matthew. 2. His Brother Jehojakim 
(b) ver. 1.  succeeded, whom the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. His Son and next Successor was Jehojakim: 
(c) ver. 5.  who is sometimes called Coniah, 
(d) Jer. 22.24.  and sometimes Jeconiah, 
(e) 1 Chron. 3.16.  (as Matthew here calls him) so that to supply this want of one Generation, the Text should be read thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (seu Jehojachim) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (seu Jehojachim) etc. so the Text agrees with the Genealogy in the Old Testament, and the Generation wanting is supplied, and the Truth of the Text cleared; which (without such supply) is not true. For the Text (as now we read it) says, That Josiah bega● Jeconiah and his Brethren about the time of the Babylonish Captivity: whereas 1. Jeconiah was not Son of Josiah, but his Grandchild and Son of Jehojakim. 
(f) 2 Chron. 36.8.  2. Josiah was dead before the Captivity about eleven or twelve years; and Jeconiah was towards nine years old when he was carried Captive to Babylon, (for he began 
(g) 2 Chron. 36.  to Reign when he was eight years old, and Reign d three Months and ten Days) and therefore it was impossible Josiah should beget him, about the time of the captivity, who was then above eight years old, and Josiah Dead eleven or twelve years before. 3. And besides all this, it is evident that some Ancient 
(h) Vide N. Testamentum Graec. per Rob. Stephanum, Paris 1550. where in the Margin 'tis read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vid. No. Testamentum Graece Lond. 1648. & varias Lect. in Bibliis Polyglottis. Tom. 6.  Greek Copies had and read it so, as appears by the various Readins noted in our Printed Greek Testaments, and I have seen a Greek Testament Msc. betwixt five and six hundred years old, wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Text itself, though it is evident that it was left out in many Copies long before, even in the time of Epiphanius, 
(i) Vid. Epiphanium ad versus Hereses. Tom. 1. pag. 21, 22.  in the fourth Century, who takes notice of it, and endeavours (though with great 
(k) Vid. Dion. Petavii Notas ad Epiphanium. Tom. 2. Notarum, pag. 18, 19  mistakes) to solve the doubt. This omission is not only in our Bibles, but in the Popish Vulgar Latin, even in those of Sixtus V and Clement VIII. which they call Authentic, and of more Authority than the Originals.  
When I have urged this to some of their Priests; that their (as they call it) Authentic Latin Bible was false, and called the Generations from Salathiel to our Blessed Saviour Fourteen, when indeed they are but thirteen: when (upon examination) they found it so, they asked me, if it was not so in our English Bibles, I told them yes, but we were not (nor pretended to be) Infallible. But for them who constantly affirm the Pope and their Church to be Infallible, and miscall us Heretics because we will not believe it, I say for them, to make St. Matthew say, That there are fourteen Generations, when there are but thirteen, this is so far from Infallibility, that 'tis an evident argument of their gross negligence, and erroneous folly. To solve this doubt, there is a 
(l) Pet. Possinus in his Diallacticon. cap. 38. pag. 511. in calce Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Matthaeum.  Jesuit, who puts in the Virgin Mary, to make the Generations fourteen, so that in his computation of the third fourteen, from the Captivity, to our Blessed Saviour, Jacob is the Eleventh, Joseph Twelfth, Mary Thirteenth, and our Blessed Saviour Fourteenth. But why Mary (and no other Mother else) must be reckoned in this Genealogy, no reason is, or can be given; or if all Mothers, as well as Fathers must be reckoned, then in stead of Fourteen we shall have Twenty eight Generations: and it should run thus; Matthan begat Jacob, Jacob begat Joseph, and then Joseph begat Mary, (evidently untrue) and Mary begat Christ.  
BUT because you represented it to me as your Notion, that those Councils we usually call General Councils, are not in strict propriety of speech to be thought such, and as not having been convocated out of the whole Christian World, and desired me to Write to you upon that Matter, I shall here acquaint you, that a Friend of yours and mine, being to take his Degree in Divinity at Oxon, and having chose this for his Thesis to answer the Doctors upon at the Act, Viz. Quod nullum Concilium sit propriè Oecumenicum, he applied to me to communicate in Writing to him, such Historical Learning, concerning the Councils said to be General, as was necessary for his performance of that exercise; whereupon he received from me the following Papers:   

Quod nullum Concilium sit propriè Oecumenicum.  

1. Imperium Occidentale.  
IN hoc imperio erant diaeceses tres sub Praefecto Praetorio Italiae. Erant autem hae, 
Vide Imperii Occidentalis notitiam cum Panceioli Commentar. p. 10, etc.  

1. Italia, in qua Provinciae 17  
2. Illyricum, in quo Provinciae 6  
3. Africa, in quâ Provinciae 7    
Sub praefecto praetorio Galliarum erant etiam diaeceses tres, scil.  

1. Hispania in qua Provinciae 7  
2. Gallia in quâ Provinciae 17  
3. Britannia in quâ Provinciae 5  
It a in imperio Occidentali erant provincy 59    

2. Imperium Orientale.  
In hoc imperio erant diaeceses duae sub praefecto praetorio Illyrici, Scil.  

1. 
Vide Imperii Orientalis, p. 7, 8.  Macedonia in quâ Provinciae 6  
2. Dacia in qua Provinciae 5 7, 8.   
Sub praefecto praetorio per Orientem erant diaeceses quinque, Scil.  

1. Oriens Provinciae 15  
2. Aegyptus in qua Provinciae 6  
3. Asia in qua Provinciae 10  
4. Pontus in qua Provinciae 11  
5. Thracia in qua Provinciae 6  
Ita in imperio Orientali erant Provinciae 59  
Illis adde imperii Occidentalis Provincias 59  
In Vniverso igitur imperio Provinciae 118     

Syllabus Provinciarum ex quibus Episcopi in Concilio Niceno convenerant.  
Ex 

1. H●peniâ solus Hosius Cordubensis.  
2. Româ Victor & Vincentius pro Sylvestro Papa. 

Hic provinciarum catal●gus extat apud Alphonsum Pisanum in concilio Ni●●no à se edito l. 2. p. 259. Codiae Canonum vecerum Ecclesiae Romanae 11. Provincias todem pena ordine enumerat, totidem tamen non habet. Petrus Crab. in suâ conciliorum Editione. Tom. 1. p. 257. hunc eundem provinciarum Catalogum eodem prorsus ordine nobis exhibet. Vide subfriptiones hujus concilii apud Se●dimum Binium, etc. Seldenum in Commentario ad  
Batrick, seu Eutychium Alexandrinum numb. 16. p. 90, 91. Vide etiam Jac. Gothofredum in suie ad Philostorgium Cappadocem dissertationibus, lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 24, 25.    
3. Aegypto.  
4. Thebaide.  
5. ●●bia.  
6. Palaestinâ.  
7. Phaeniciâ.  
8. Caelosyriâ.  
9 Arabiâ.  
10. Mesopotamiâ.  
11. Perside.  
12. Cilicia.  
13. Cappadociâ.  
14. Armeniâ Majori.  
15. Armeniâ Minori.  
16. Ponto Polemoniaco.  
17. Ponto Paphlagoniae.  
18. Galatiâ.  
19 Asia Minore.  
20. Lydiâ.  
21. Phrygiâ.  
22. Pisidia.  
23. Lycia.  
24. Pamphyliâ.  
25. Insulis.  
26. Cariâ.  
27. Isauriâ.  
28. Cypro.  
29. Bithyniâ.  
30. Europâ, Thracia intelligitur.  
31. Daciâ.  
32. Mysia.  
33. Macedoniâ.  
34. Achaiâ.  
35. Thessaliâ.  
36. Calabriâ.  
37. Carthagine.  
38. Dardaniâ.  
39 Thessalia.  
40. Dalmatia.  
41. Pannonia.  
42. Galliâ.  
43. Gothiâ.  
44. Bosphoro.    
In hoc Concilio nulli aderant provinciarum Episcopi extra imperium Romanum positarum, Scil.  
Ex 

1. Aethiopia nulli.  
2. Juliâ.  
3. Parthia.  
4. Tartariâ.  
5. Chinensi.  
6. Scotiâ.  
7. Hiberniâ.  
8. Daniâ.  
9 Sueciâ, etc.    
2. Concilium hoc Nicenum non fuisse Oecumenicum manifestè constabit duplici argumento.  
1. Quia pars longè major provinciarum, quae ditionis erant Romanae, ad Concilium hoc Episcopos planè nullos delegabat.  
2. Quia provinciae Christianae extra imperium Romanum, per Episcopos suos planè nullae aderant.  
1. Provinciae imperii, sub Niceni consilii saeculo, ut & saeculis aliquot deinceps subsecutis erant 118. Quod ex Authenticâ ipsius imperii 
(a) Vide Notitiam utriusque imperii, Orientis sc. & Occi●entis ultra Arcadii & Honorii tempora, cum doctissimi● Guidonis Panciroli Comment. Gen 1623.  notitiâ,  constat. Ex quibus solum provinciae 44 suos ad Concilium Episcopos miserunt (ut ex Subscriptionibus prius positis patet) & per consequens provinciae 74 nullos habuere in Concilio illo Episcopos. Cum ideo è provinciis 118 (plus minus) 74 a Concilio abeyant. hoc est provinciarum pars long major, Concilium Oecumenicum esse non potuit, quod etiam in confesso est apud Pontificios. 
(b) Vide Barth. Caranzam in praeludio 4. ad suam Conciliorum summam, p. 5.   
2. Nominatim nulli huic Concilio intererant Episcopi,  
1. Ex Italia Vniversa, nisi Episc. Romanus per legatos, & Episcopus è Calabria unus.  
2. Ex Hispaniis solus Hosius est excipiendus.  
3. E Galliis uno excepto.  
4. E Germania.  
5. E Scotia.  
6. Ex Hibernia.  
7. E Dania.  
8. E Swecia.  
9 E Polonia.  
10. E Brittannia nostra, cum tamen constat in Concilio Aratadensi, Anno 314. Episcopos Brittannos tres fuisse; una cum presbytero & diacono.  
2. Concilium Constantinopolitanum primum.  
Subscripserunt 1. Nectarius Constantinopolitanus, tum provinciarum episcopi; 


Extat hic provinciarum Catalogus in Codice Canonum veterum Ecclesiae Romanae, p. 92. & idem pene apud Pet. Crab. Tom. Concil. 1. p. 412.  1. Aegypti.  
2. Palaestinoe.  
3. Phaeniciae.  
4. Caelo-Syriae.  
5. Arabiae.  
6. Provinciae Bostrensis.  
7. Provinciae Osdroenae.  
8. Mesopotamiaes.  
9 Augustae Euphrasiae.  
10. Cilinae.  
11. Armeniae minoris.  
12. Isauriae.  
13. Cypri.  
14. Pamphyliae.  
15. Lycaoniae.  
16. Pisidiae.  
17. Phrygiae Salutaris.  
18. Phrygiae Pacatianae.  
19 Bythiniae.  
20. Ponti.  
21. Mysiae.  
22. Scythiae.  
23. Spaniae.  
24. Ponti Polemoniaci.    
Sed huic Concilio non intererant, primò Episcopi ●●●vinciarum 94. Imperio Romano subjectarum. Ita ex Provinciis Imperii 118. solum Provinciae 24. suos ibi habuere Episcopos & Provinciae 94 non habuerunt.  
2. Nu●●rovin●tarum Christianarum extra In per●●●●●●num pos●tarum Episcopi hic aderant. V●●nti ex Aethiopia, India, Persia, Scotia, Hybernia, etc.  
3. Concilium Ephesinum.  
Aderant solum Episcopi 156. ut constat ex Graeca hujus Concilii Editione per 
(a) Vide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. p. 99 Edita Heidelb. Anno 1591.  Hieronym. Commolinum Heidelbergae Anno 1591. Quamvis 
(b) Caranza in Summa Conciliorum, p. 297.  Caranza Patres 200. Synodo hâc convenisse asserit. Eundem Episcoporum numerum habet Codex Canonum Vetus Ecclesiae Romanae, p. 101. De hoc Concilio ex Actorum ejus & subscriptionum diligenti collatione constat;  
1. Nullum ex Provinciis extra Imperium Romanum Positis Episcopum ibidem adfuisse.  
2. Ex Provinciis sub Imperio & Ditione Romana comprehensis (sunt autem 118. ad minimum, ut ex notitia Imperii Patet) pauciores Provinciae ad hoc quam ad Nicenum Concilium Episcopos delegarunt.  
4. Concilium Chalcedonense.  
In hoc convenerunt Episcopi 620. 
(a) Pet. Crab. Tom. 1. p. 736. Ekingerus in sua Conciliorum editiine, p. 150.  de quo notandum,  
1. Episcopi è Provinciis extra Imperium Romanum Positis nulli hic aderant,  
2. E Provinciis Imperii 118. Episcopi Provinciarum 46. 
(b) Codex Canonum Vetus Ecclesiae Rom. p. 137.  solùm hic convenerunt, ita ut è Provinciis Imperii 72. Episcopus ne unus quidem huic Synodo interfuit.  
Synodo huic Episcopi nulli aderant.  
Ex 

1. Vniversa Italia (exceptis Episcopi Romani legatis.)  
2. Hispania.  
3. Gallia.  
4. Britannia.  
5. Hibernia.  
6. Germania.  
7. Hungaria.  
8. Polonia.  
9 Dania vel Suecia.  
10. Aethiopia.  
11. Indiis Vtrisque.  
12. Parthia.  
13. Persia.  
14. Scythia.    
Dub. At inquies Concilium Nicenum, Chalcedonense, etc. ab omnibus dicuntur Oecumenica, Ergo, etc.  
Resp. Dici poterant Oecumenica, 1. Respectu Orbis Romani & Imperii, utpote à Caesare Convocata. 2. Sed non respectu Orbis Christiani, (de quo hic quaeritur) utpote nullius Imperio subditi, à quo legitimè Convocari poterant.  
Memorand. To use all previous care and caution in the stating of the Question after this manner; viz.  
1. That by Councils we do not understand a Civil Senate, or Politic Meeting, sed Conventum Cleri.  
2. That whereas Councils are usually divided by Writers into Provincial, National, and General, he should take notice that it is the last only that the Fathers do call Ecumenical; that is, a Council wherein the Bishops of the whole World do meet. And that, tho' it is to be granted, that in some Councils, most of the Bishops of the Romish Jurisdiction may have met; yet that such Councils deserve to be called Conciliabula rather than Concilia: And as for example in the Council of Trent, only those who were called by the Bull of Paul the third met, who were sworn Abettors of the Romish Doctrine. And that certainly at the times of all those pretended General Councils meeting, there were always Christians without the bounds of the Roman Empire, which might have been, and aught to have been called to the Councils. Isa. 46.6. I have appointed thee to be a Light to the Gentiles, and a Saviour to the ends of the Earth. And Christ gave his Apostles Authority to go over the whole World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature. Theodoret gives Testimony to this in his Book De Curandis Graecorum affectibus. Nostri illi Piscatores ac Publicani, sutorque ille noster, cunctis Gentibus Legem Evangelicam detulerunt. Neque solum Romanos, quique sub Romano vivunt imperio, sed Scythas quoque ac Sauromatas, Indos, Aethiopos, Persas, Hircanos, Britannos, Cimmerios & Germanos, utque semel dicatur, omne hominum genus, Nationesque omnes induxerunt Crucifixi Leges accipere.  
But since you are pleased to desire my thoughts about the sense in which Protestants allow that the Body and Blood of Christ is really present in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and are likewise desirous to know whether Papists do not, on occasion, sometimes, slight and disobey their General Councils;  
You may in the first place take notice, that all sober Protestants admit and believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is in a sense really present in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The Lutherans, who hold Consubstantiation, do yet believe that, and so do the Calvinists too.  
That there is a Substitution of Body and Blood in the place of the Bread and Wine, nothing of the Symbols remaining, they deny.  
Some foolish Papists bring a place out of the 6th of St. John for Transubstantiation, (that makes nothing for it) where Christ saith, Except ye eat the Flesh, and drink the Blood of the Son of God, ye can have no life in you, etc. But this place indeed makes much against the Romanists. For as to the eating of the Flesh of Christ, being spoken of, 'tis confessed by Bellarmine, lib. 1. De Eucharistia, cap. 1. that those words of St. John do not properly belong to the Sacrament, but the Mystery of the Incarnation. So Gabriel, Cusanus, Cajetan, Tapper judge likewise. For Christ speaking of the necessity of eating his Body, and drinking his Blood, must needs speak of something which was possible; (for certainly he laid no necessity on Men to do impossibilities) but the Sacramental eating of his Body was not then possible when he spoke this. For then there was no such Sacrament in the World, Christ having than not instituted his last Supper. And all Popish Writers do grant, that Christ did not institute the Sacrament of his last Supper, or Eucharist, till a good while after. So saith P. Joh. Martinex de Ripalda in Brevi Exposit. Lit. Magistri Sent. L. 4. distinct. 8. Assert. 2. p. 601. Hoc Sacramentum (inquit) fuit institutum Nocte Passionis.  
And then again secondly, our Saviour in this 6th of St. John speaks of the Eating, without which there was no spiritual life. But without Sacramental eating, there may be spiritual life; as many of them who believed had that life wrought in them then. And certainly all those holy Men who died before our Saviour's Passion, had spiritual life in them. Therefore these expressions are not meant of a Sacramental eating, but of a figurative, a fiducial and spiritual eating by Faith.  
Thirdly; If Sacramental eating and drinking be here meant, no Lay-Roman Catholic can then possibly be saved; for Lay Roman Catholics are sacrilegiously denied the Blood of Christ, being denied the Cup.  
last; 'Twill appear further from the Text itself, that this eating was not opus Oris, but Cordis. So verse 35. I am the Bread of Life; he that comes to me shall not hunger, and he that believes on me shall not thirst: Where to come to him, and believe on him, are manifestly said to be the same things, which afterward he calls eating his Flesh, and drinking his Blood, v. 53, 54.  
Now the generality of the Papists interpret this place of St. John, not to be meant literally. And therefore the other of, Hoc est Corpus meum, may not be meant literally.  
These expressions of, This is my Body, and this is my Blood; that is, Symbolical and Sacramental Signs, Seals, and Representations of his Body, and Blood, and Passion, are most agreeable to the Common Dialect and Idiotisms of the Jews, to the Genius and Language of their Country, and the Place where, and Persons with whom our Saviour lived; as is manifest by several phrases and parallel expressions of the Holy Ghost in Scripture. So the seven fat Kine are called seven years of Plenty. And Ezekiel speaking of dry Bones, saith, These Bones are the House of Israel. So in Daniel, Thou, O King, art that golden head. So in the Gospel, The Rock was Christ. And Hagar and Sara are the two Covenants; the seven Heads are seven Hills. The Woman is that great City, etc. And our Saviour saith of himself; I am the true Vine. Why should we not infer as well from hence, that Christ was turned into a Vine, as what the Papists infer from other words? since he saith only, This is my Blood, not my true Blood; and here saith, I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Christ saith, he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But the Papists Tenet is a thing gratis dictum, a bare assertion without proof, a begging of what should be proved. This Popish Opinion would never have been received, if the Tyranny of some, and Ends and Interests of others did not unhappily cause it. There is no more connection between the things contained in it, than between Tenterton Steeple and Goodwin Sands; no shadow of consequence: Nor hath the antecedent any more Logical relation to the consequent than Chalk to Cheese.  
And now I shall give you a clear account of what we Protestants (at lest what I) believe in this particular.  
Now that I may do this with as much clearness and sincerity as I can, I shall say, 1. That the Body and Blood of Christ may be said to be present in the Eucharist; first, respectu sui, by a Corporeal, Physical, and Local presence, as if Christ's Body itself were substantially in the place where the Bread and Wine is.  
Secondly, respectu causati & effectus producti, when Christ's Body (tho' comprehended in Heaven) that is, the gracious effect of his Death and Passion, goeth along with the Sacred Symbols, and is really present to the Believing Receiver. That we call a Local, this a Virtual (yet real) presence.  
Secondly; As to the Local presence of our Saviour's Body, we may say it is in Heaven only, not here in the Eucharist; and the Scripture saith so too in express terms: It is in Heaven, therefore not here; it being impossible (as involving a manifest contradiction) that the same Numerical Body should at the same time be here and there too.  
Thirdly; As to the Virtual presence (which is real too) we say and believe that the gracious Effects of our Saviour's Body and Blood, are really present, and go along with the Sacred Signs in the Sacrament to those who are true Believers. But for wicked Men, who are Enemies to Christ, and dead in their sins and trespasses, Christ's Body and Blood are neither locally, nor virtually present to them. In that sense we now speak of, they neither receive his Body nor Blood, nor any benefit by them.  
Fourthly; We believe and say that the Cause of this presence is twofold; first, Moral; secondly, Physical.  
First; Faith being an Evangelical Condition, on which all the Evangelical Promises and Blessings of God in Christ depend, it is manifest, that as the want of it is a Moral Cause why we want those Blessings, so the having of it is morally a Cause why we have them. For when once our gracious God doth promise us any thing upon condition of Faith (and he doth promise Heaven itself on that condition) the Condition being performed on our part, there lies an Obligation on God (who will not, nay cannot break his promise,) to give us those Blessings which he promised on that Condition. So that Faith being a conditio praestita ex parte nostri, I call it a Moral cause (and their own Schoolmen call it so too) of Christ's real presence to Believers in the Eucharist.  
For as Faith was Conditio praerequisita, a Condition required in those Adulti in the Acts, who were to be baptised; and the want of it was a Moral Cause why Baptism was not effectual, and the presence of it a cause of all those gracious Consequents sealed to Believers by Baptism: So in the Eucharist Faith is a Moral Cause of the spiritual nourishment and growth of Grace sealed to us in that Sacrament.  
Secondly; But there is another power which I call a Physical Cause of that real presence, and that is our blessed Saviour himself as Mediator and Head of the Church. For to him (as such) all Power is given of redeeming, justifying, sanctifying, saving his Servants. And he is both the Efficient and Meritorious Cause of all spiritual blessings bestowed on us: So that the real presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, is from Faith as a Moral Cause; and from another Power, that of Jesus Christ as our Mediator, as from the Efficient Cause.  
You will find some of our Romish Adversaries so confident, as to tell us that the first Christian World believed otherwise than the Protestants do in these and other Points.  
But there they must of necessity, if they will speak congruously, by the first Christian World, mean the first hundred years after Christ, or that, and some of the next Centuries following. And to make this good, surely they will bring some Authors of that time to prove it. Some of them have cited St. Ignatius, who lived in the time of of the first Century.  
But why he is no Competent Witness, will anon appear. And as for D. Areopagite, we know that he is a Bastard, and no Father; that the Works ascribed to him are adulterate and spurious Brats, and confessed so to us by the Papists and proved to be so many hundred years before Luther was born.  
If Ignatius his Epistle to the Smyrnenses be not altogether forged, yet it is so mangled and interpolated by the injury of time, and the subtlety and knavery of persons enslaved to Interest, that it is impossible to know which is genuine, and which not, and so the whole is of no competent Authority. How strangely Ignatius is mangled and interpolated, you may see by the vast difference of all Copies and Editions, Greek and Latin, as that of Videlius, Vsserius, J. Vossius.  
You may likewise observe that the Papists do in some things go contrary to Councils: For they go contrary to the Concilium Nicenum secundum; that Council utterly denying the picturing of God the Father, and yet they of Rome approve and practise it.  
This Doctrine of Anti-transubstantiatio●, is no new Doctrine crept into the World since Luther's time, but the Ancient Faith of the English (and indeed of all Christendom) long before the Conquest in the time of our Saxon Progenitors. And so we find it in an Ancient Homily writ originally in Latin, but among many others translated into Saxon by Aelfricus, Abbot of St. Alban in King Edgar's time. Vid. Saxon. Homil, die Sancto Paschae, p. 35.  
That Homily was no private thing, but commanded by Authority to be read in Churches on Easter-day, where speaking of the Sacred Symbols in the Eucharist, we are told, that it is naturally corruptible Bread and Wine, and is by might of God's Word truly Christ's Body and Blood, yet not so bodily, but ghostly. And then there are divers differences put between Christ's Body in which he suffered, and his Body in the Sacrament. As first, That was born of the Virgin Mary, had flesh and blood: But his ghostly or spiritual Body is gathered of many Corns without Bones, Blood or Limb, and without Soul; therefore nothing to be understood therein bodily, but all ghostly. And a little after, This Mystery (speaking of the sacred Host) is a pledge and figure: Christ's Body is Truth itself.  
This was the Ancient Faith of the Church of England seven hundred years ago, and 'tis ours still.  
If at, or after the Lateran Council Transubstantiation, and another new Doctrine was broached by the Tyranny of Rome, and the slavish Credulity of some of our Predecessors, let Roman Catholics ingenuously tell us, who are the Innovators.  
But suppose a few persons believed so; suppose any Fathers quoted for it were uncorrupt; yet it doth not follow that because they believed so, therefore the Christian World believed so.  
And again, suppose that the Major part of Fathers and Doctors of the Church were for such an Opinion, I ask if this doth bind Posterity to be of their Faith?  
I shall here show you, that tho' none pretend more to Antiquity than the Papists, or make a greater noise with Fathers and Councils, yet they slight them as much as any, when they speak any thing against the sense of the present Church.  
As for instance (what I partly before hinted) Cardinal Cajetan (a very Learned Man) in the beginning of his Commentaries on Genesis, hath this passage; Si quando occurrit novus sensus textui consonus, quamvis à torrente Doctorum alienus, ●quum se praebeat lector Censorem: And a little after he adds, Nullus detestetur novum Sacrae Scripturae sensum ex hoc quod dissonat à priscis Doctoribus. Maldonat. in cap. 6. Johannis, that he might oppose Calvin, confesseth, (which no Witness but my own Eyes could make me believe) that he chose a new Interpretation on the place against all the Ancients.  
But in the next place, to prove that Papists have sometimes gone against General Councils (since you give me occasion further to dilate on what I before referred to by way of hint) I shall tell you, that the Canon of the great Council of 
(b) Concil. Chalced. Can. 2. in Collect. Can. Graec. Lat. per Eliam Elingerum. 29. In Cod. Can. Ecclesiae Vnivers. per Christoph. Justellum.  Chalcedon, (one of the four which Pope Gregory would have received tanquam quatuor Evangelia) made by 630 Bishops, confirmed by the 6th General Council held at Constantinople: And by that of 
(c) Conc. Constant. in T●ullo, Can. 36. for so it is acknowledged (tho' Binius and some o her● would fain deny it) in the b●dy of the Canon Law. C. r●nova●●es Dist. 22. in the last and best Editions of it. See Greg. 13. his Bull given at Rome July 1. 1580. Gratiano praefixum.  Constance too, (Sess. 39 fol. 39 Edit. Antiquae Mediolani 1511.) is yet every where slighted by Popish Authors. For Canon the 28th (or as in some Editions the 29th) Canon of Chalcedon is quite left out in that Edition of the Councils by P. Crab, and in that of Dionysius Exiguus in the Vetus Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Romanae in Caranza, etc. And tho' Franciscus Longus 
(d) Summa Concillor. per Francisc. Longum à Coriolano, p. 402. apud illum, Can. 27.  a Coriolano hath that Canon; yet in his Annotations he flatly denies it, and goes about to prove it false in divers particulars.  
So that the Canonical determinations of 360 Fathers met in a General Council, (whose Constitutions their own 
(e) Extra. De Renuntiation●, cap. post Translationem.  Pope Gregory would have received as Evangelical Truths) when they make against them, signify nothing, but are flatly denied.  
And if it be said that this was no Canon of the Council, the contrary is manifestly true; for it is in all the Original Greek Copies Printed, and Manuscript, 
(f) Videses Cod. Canonum per Christoph. Justellum Ecclesiae Vniversae, Can. 206. p 25. Zonaram in Canon. Concil. p. 118. Theodorum Balsamon. in Can. 28. Concil. Chalcedon. & Can. Concilior. Graec. Lat. Quarto. An. 1560. per Andr. Gesnerum, p. 48. Vid. Caranzam in Notis ad Marginem, c. 36. Concil. Constantinop. p. 635. where he tells us that Canon is in the Greek Copies, sed deest in Latinis exemplaribus.  and expressly confirmed by the 36th Canon of the Sixth General Council at Constantinople, Registered by Gratian (Can. Renovantes. Dist. 22.) tho' with insufferable falsehood and corruption of the Canon, as will manifestly appear to any who will compare Gratians reading with the Original. 
(g) Vid. Vetus ●●sc. Sy●●●icum in Bi●l. B ●le●●. i●●er M●c. G●●●ca è M●s oh Barociano.   
I know they of Rome sli●ht this of constantinople, as much as that ●f Cha●cedon.  
For first, Binius tells us it smells more of ambition than truth and 
(h) Caranza in A●not. ad Can. 36. Conc ●ii 6. Gen. p. 635.  Caranza, ●rroneus a quibusdam existi ●●ur hic Canon.  
And Indeed i● is ●ecess●ry for them to deny that Canon; for it positively asserts and determines such truths as utterly overthrow their Pope's pretended Supremacy, which they so much and so irrationally contend ●●r.  
For First that great General Council gives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (not s●● lias only as Gratian falsely reads it, 
(a) Gratian Can. Renovantes. dist. 22.  even in the last and best Edition of their Canon-law, equal Privileges to New and Old Rome: that is, declared and pronounced Constantinople, or the Patriarch of that Imperial City, to have equal Privileges with the Pope or Patriarch of old Rome.  
Secondly, That the Roman Bishop had not those Privileges among other Bishops by any Divine right or succession from St. Peter, (as now they would pretend) but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: they were given by ecclesiastical and positive constitution of the Fathers.  
Thirdly, And they to make this manifest tell us, that Rome had those ancient prerogatives (not as its Bishop was St. Peter's Successor or with any relation to it, but) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it was the Imperial City. 
(b) Vid. Cod. Canonum ecclesiae universae per Christoph I ustellum Can. 206.  And so they gave Constantinople such great Privileges (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 received in Christendom with great Veneration, and confirmed by the Councils of Constance 
(c) Vid. Concil. Constanti●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) Syn●dus sexta Constan. in Trullo. Can. 36. apud Th●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 showed you, how they slight their Councils. And it is an easier matter to show how upon occasion they slight the Pope.  
You will be sufficiently satisfied in this if you again consult the 
(h) Concil. Constantiense s●ss. 38. p. 37. in Editione Zac●ariae Ferre●ii Abbatis Vin●entini. Mediolani. 1511.  Council of Constance: and will the●e see that Petrus de Luna, sc. Benedictus 13. Haereseos damnatur sic. Sacrosancta Synodus pronuntiat & declarat per hanc diffinitivam sententiam Petrum de Lunà Benedictum 13. esse perjurum, uni versalis Ecclesiae scandalizatorem, schismaticum, & haereticum a fide devium, etc.  
Hoc etiam prae ●●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 God's 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 myself, 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 called Redemption Redeemed, where your Argument is this,  
If Christ died not for all men, than 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 cried up by men of your Judgement as the great Goliath 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 Logic 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 tie men to this.  
For the internal acts of belief and dependence 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. Paul's phrase) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aristotle's Language, or those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (in the dialect of the Stoics) 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 wholly on the liberum Dei decretum & beneplacitum, which was not possible to be known by any created Understanding whatsoever, further than he was graciously pleased 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 pleased) this was above the finite capacity of any Man or Angel to know further than God revealed it to them.  
'Tis true indeed that on supposition that God hath revealed to all the World that Christ should or had died for them, and that it was his Will that all should rely on him for Salvation, than the Law of Nature would oblige all Men (to whom the revelation was made) to believe accordingly, because Nature itself 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, 'Tis 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. Occam 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 supreme 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 published 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 intent 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 'tis 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 published among the Gentiles, and the Apostles preached every where that men should believe on Christ for Salvation, (Act. 17, 18.) They called 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 Lawgiver 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, than 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 noonday.  
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 sinned, to repent of that Sin, and would have done so if Jesus Christ had never been revealed to the World. If Sempronius hath sinned, 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 sinned, 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 Virtue 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 revealed, shall not be tried 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 tried 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, Your very humble Servant. Septemb. 1651.   

An Account by way of Abstract of Mr. John Goodwin's Book, called, The Pagans Debt and Dowry, etc. Printed at London in the year 1651. returned by way of answer to the foregoing Letter of Dr. Barlow.  
MR. Goodwin there in p. 4. acknowledgeth that Dr. Barlow hath pleaded the cause of what he asserted, with as much ingenuity and strength, as any man whatsoever could have done. But in pag 6. he mentions that he will answer some of the more material parts of Dr. Barlow 's Discourse, tho' not in the same order to which he might be directed by his Papers, but only as they came to his remembrance, he not having leisure for a second Review. But 'tis pity that he had not endeavoured for the World's satisfaction, to have answered Paragraph by Paragraph, as is usually done by the answerers of Discourses writ with such accurateness of method as Dr. Barlow's is.  
However some of the more material replies of Mr. John Goodwin shall be here set down and left to the World's consideration.  
He saith in pag. 10. and seque 4. That the Scriptures in several places plainly insinuate a capacity in the Heathen, yea in all men by the light of Nature, to attain or make out this Evangelical conclusion, that some mediation, some atonement or other hath been made and accepted by God for the sins of Men. But I demand (saith the Apostle Paul, Rom. 10.18.) Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went forth into all the Earth, and their words unto the end of the World.  
He had said in the verse immediately foregoing that Faith comes by hearing; in this verse, he shows in an answer which he gives to a demand or question put by him what hearing it is by which Faith comes, or at lest what hearing is sufficient to believe upon, or produce Faith? This hearing, he saith, is the hearing of that sound, and of those words which the Heavens, and the day and the night speak, and that are gone forth into the end of the World, as appears by the Place in (Psal. 19) from whence these words are added; If you ask me but what is the sound, or what are the words, which the Heavens, and the Day, and the Night, i. e. The constant course of the Providence of God, in the Government of the World, speak in the Ears of all Nations, and of all People, that Faith shall come by the hearing of them? I answer, They are the words of Eternal Life too, as well as those which as ●eter acknowledgeth our Saviour himself had to speak, yea and did speak upon all occasions: only they are not so plainly spoken as he was wont to speak, their Parable is somewhat more dark and harder to be understood: but the sense and import of what the Heavens moving still in their Natural courses, and the gracious Providence of God jointly speak in the Ears of all Flesh is, that God is taken off from the fierceness of h●● displeasure against sin, and that he holds forth his White Flag, and offers terms and conditions of Peace unto the World, and that upon their coming in to him by Repentance, they shall be received into Grace and Favour. And what is this but the very tenor, sum, and substance of the Gospel, which yet is more plain from that of the same Apostle, Acts 14. to the Men of Lystra who (saith he, speaking of God) in times past suffered all the Gentiles to walk in their own ways nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us Rain from Heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.  
In respect of what was it, that God left not himself without witness amongst the Gentiles, even then when he suffered them to walk in their own ways; viz. without admonishing and directing them how to walk, and what to do, after any such manner as now he doth by the Letter of the Gospel sent amongst them what did the witnesses the Apostle here speaks of, witness concerning God, or on his behalf? doubtless he doth not speak here of his Godhead, nor of his Power, nor of his Wisdom, as if his meaning were, that God left not himself without witness of these, (tho' it be true, that he did not leave himself without witness, i. e. means of convincing men of these also,) but the works of Creation, as distinguished from the works of Providence (whereof he here speaks) are sufficient witnesses of these, according to the Tenor of Rom. 1.20. and besides there are natural impressions of these in the Spirits and Consciences of Men, which are witness on God's behalf thus far; but doubtless that in God, or concerning God, which (as the Apostle here saith) God intended should be testified or witnessed on his behalf unto men, was somewhat more secret, more out of the way (as it were) of men's common thoughts or apprehensions, and particularly it was that gracious and good affection which he bears unto the World, through Jesus Christ, his inclination unto peace with men upon their Repentance (which is the substance of the Gospel.) This appears first. By the nature or quality of the Witnesses here spoken of, which were God's giving men Rain from Heaven, and fruitful seasons, his filling their hearts with food and gladness, such witnesses as these are only proper to testify Grace and Love, and desire of the good of those, to whom they are given, in him that giveth them; They plainly show, that he that shows them, is not extreme with, hath not extremity against those that do amiss, and consequently that he is by one means or other taken off from the rigour of his Justice, and severity of his wrath against sinners. And 2. It appears from hence, because Paul who was not only a diligent and faithful Preacher of the Gospel where ever he came, but was in special manner designed to be an Apostle to the Gentiles, Preached no other Doctrine than this at Lystra (a City of the Gentiles.) Upon that great opportunity that was now offered him, we cannot think that he should Preach a Philosophical or Metaphysical Sermon, concerning the Essence or Natural proporties of God only, but which was Evangelical, and savouring of the Gospel; now the Holy Ghost recording either the whole, or (at least) the sum and substance of what he Preached in this place, reporteth nothing Evangelical as spoken by him, except this be acknowledged for such; so that clear it is from the Scriptures, that all the World, even those that are most straitened and scanted in this kind, those that have not the Letter of the Gospel, have yet sufficient means of believing granted unto them; of believing, I mean, 1. That God is, 2. That he is a Rewarder of those that diligently seek him; which is all the Faith or Belief the Apostle makes simply and absolutely necessary to bring a man unto God, i. e. into grace and favour with him, Heb. 11.  
There are several other Scriptures that speak home to this Point, besides those argued, particularly that, Rom. 2.4. Or, despisest thou the Riches of his Goodness and Forbearance, and Long-suffering, not knowing that the Goodness of God leadeth thee to Repentance: The Long-suffering and Goodness of God are said to lead Men to Repentance, because they testify according to a rational and clear Interpretation, a willingness and readiness in God, to receive all such into grace and favour with himself, who shall unfeignedly repent of their sins. There is no other consideration, but this (at lest none without this) in respect whereof, the patience or bountifulness of God, can be said to lead, i. e. to persuade or invite to Repentance. There is no motive or persuasive whereof sinners are capable, unto Repentance, without hope of pardon upon Repentance. In the mean season, you see it clear from the Scriptures; (and the Scriptures, as you have seen, run parallel with evident and clear Reason all along in this Point) that even Heathen Men, and those that want the History of the Gospel, have yet a sufficiency of means whereby to believe, and to prevent the Wrath and Indignation, which is to come, in which regard they are altogether inexcusable, if they do it not.  
He saith in ●. 29. That whereas you argue, that all Men have not a Legal Tie or Obligation upon them to believe in Jesus Christ, and upon this account cannot stand bound to believe on him; I answer by denying your Antecedent, and affirm by all men, [i. e. all men not wholly disabled, either through want of Years, or defect of Natural Capacity, to believe, though there be a sense, which the Schoolmen term, Sensus Divisus, wherein even such persons as these are under a Tie of believing,] but all others (I affirm) are simply and directly under the Obligation of believing on Jesus Christ.  
And whereas you further argue; if so, then are they under this Obligation, either by the Law of Nature, or else by some positive Law of God; and affirm, that by neither, and hence conclude not at all: I answer; The Obligation you speak of lieth upon them, by the force and authority of both these Laws: First; The Law of Nature requireth all men; teacheth all men, 1. To seek and inquire after God, i. e. the knowledge of his Nature, Attributes, Excellency, and Perfection of Being. 2. After the richest and best discoveries of his will and pleasure concerning men, which are any where to be found. 3. And lastly; This Law requireth likewise of all men, to submit unto every part of the will and pleasure of God concerning them, being any ways made known to them; otherwise we must hold, either that this Law teacheth not men to regard, mind, look or listen after any manifestation or discovery which God makes of himself, in any part of the World, but only near to them, and (as the saying is) under their Noses, or within their own Thresholds: Or else that it teacheth them to rest satisfied with such discoveries in this kind, which are imperfect, and unsatisfactory: Or lastly; That it doth not teach them to submit to the Will of God in all things, as far as it shall be discovered unto them; none of all which can be affirmed, with truth, or likelihood of truth. First then; if the Law of Nature requireth of all men (except the before excepted) to inquire after the best and fullest discovery, which God any where maketh of himself, his will and pleasure concerning men.  
And 2. If the Gospel be the richest and fullest discovery in this kind which he hath made, or which is to be found, which I presume is no Christian man's Question. And lastly; If it be the express Revealed Will of God in this Gospel-discovery of himself, that all men who hear of it, or have come to the knowledge of it, should believe in his Son Jesus Christ; it roundly follows, that by the Law of Nature, all men of years and competent understanding stand obliged to believe in Christ, either in sensu composito, as, viz. if they have, or have had the Letter of the Gospel, or live, or have lived under the sound of the Ministry of it, or else in sensu Diviso, viz. in case the Gospel hath never yet in the Letter or Ministry of it been revealed unto them.  
There are more Notions of the same nature, that the reader may find in Mr. Goodwin's said Book, and to which he is referred, it being learnedly writ, and containing what can be said for Mr. Goodwin's Assertion, and both Dr. Barlow's Letter, and Mr. Goodwin's Answer may be to such who writ of Controversial Divinity, an useful Specimen of two Antagonists writing of the same with Candour, and like Gentlemen as well as Scholars and Christians, and the which was suitable to the natural tempers both of Dr. Barlow, and Mr. Goodwin. For tho' the latter hath in many of his Writings often used sharp satirical Reflections on the Authors he answered; yet it was always in the case of such who treated him uncivilly and scurrilously, that he thus answered a Fool according to his folly. But the soft, and gentle, and Christian Language he bestows on Dr. Barlow in this his Answer, is in many places obvious to the Reader; besides, in that before mentioned, in p. the 4th. He had before said in p. 3. I find you a man of a fa● better spirit, than I have yet met with in any Antagonist. And afterward, I cannot but kindly resent in you that worthy disposition in you to put honour where it was wanting, and to help with your respects to fill up the Pit which others have digged in the field of my Reputation, to find the Treasure of their own. And afterward; I greatly desire it at the hand of my God, both yours and mine, etc. And you have writ not without grounds worthy a Learned Man. And in p. 5. he saith, Tho' I very much honour you for those signal parts of Christian worth and ingenuity, which by the light of your Papers sent me, I sufficiently discern in you. etc. And he concludes his Letter with the soft and Christian Subscription, viz. Yours in Jesus Christ, as yourself, and your own Soul, J. Goodwin.  
But here it is fit to advertise the Reader, that Dr. Barlow's Assertion in his Letter to Mr. Goodwin, hath in it nothing of heterodoxy, or what differs from the measures of the Church of England. For our Great Bishop Sanderson (with as much honour now quoted in the Divinity Schools as Aristotle is in those of Philosophy) tells us in his 4th Lecture, and of the Adequate Rule of Conscience, § 21. That the Gentiles to whom the Gospel hath not been Preached are not bound to believe the Gospel, or to believe on Christ. For, Nemo tenetur ad impossibile. And he asserts the same thing in that Lecture, § 32.   

Dr. Barlow having been in the year 1673.  of Oxford, and being obliged to Communicate to the Clergy of that Diocese the Orders about Catechising, and which his Majesty in that conjuncture thought fit to have revived, here follows a deduction of the factum about it in the several Letters that the affair gave occasion for, viz.  
Reverend Brethren,  
IT hath pleased his Sacred Majesty to give some commands to my Lord's Grace of Canterbury, to be communicated to the Clergy of his Province. From his Grace they have been conveyed to the Right Reverend our good Diocesan, who has enjoined me to transfer them to you. What his Majesty's pleasure is, you will (I hope) fully understand, by the Letters here enclosed. To have summoned you to Oxon (or any other place) for the delivery of those Letters, would have been some trouble, and possibly charge (which his Lordship is always willing to prevent;) and therefore, having no other commands from my Superiors to communicate (save those here enclosed) I chose rather to send them, together with the Respects and Service of  
(Reverend Brethren) Your Affectionate Brother and Servant. Tho. Barlow. Q. Coll. Oxon May 22. 1673.   

I Need not tell you, that the Laws and Constitutions mentioned in my Lord's Grace of Canterbury's Letter, are, 1. The Constitutions of Convocation. 1. Jacobi 1603. Can. 59.2. The Rubric at the end of our Church Catechism in our present Common-Prayer Book. Which Canon and Rubric agree in this. 1. That there must be Catechising every Sunday and holiday. 2. It must be in the Afternoon. 3. That all Fathers and Mothers, Masters and Mistresses, are bound to send their Children, Apprentices and Servants. But in some things they differ. 1. The Canon injoins Catechising (as to the time) before Evening-prayer, but the Rubric says after the second Lesson. 2. The Canon says, they shall Catechise Half an hour or more, the Rubric limits no time, but leaves it to the prudence of the Minister, as he shall think convenient. Now where they differ, the Rubric is to be followed, because ratified by Acts of Parliament (which the Canon is not) and so more obligatory. 3. The Rubric omits the Punishment the Ordinary may inflict, in case the Rubric or Canon be not observed: But the Canon distinctly sets down the penalties. 1. Of the Minister, if he neglect Catechising according to Canon. 2. Of Parents and Masters, if they refuse or neglect to send their Children or Servants. 3. Of Children and Servants, if they refuse to come and be Catechised according to Canon. Which penalties (upon neglect of Duty) will, I doubt not, be inflicted by those in Authority.   

My Lord,  
I Have received a Letter from his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, a Copy whereof I am required to transmit to your Lordship, by which you will understand the Duty which his Majesty requires of your Lordship. The Letter is as followeth.  
The Kings most Excellent Majesty being truly sensible that the growing increase of the prevailing Sects and Disorders among us, proceeds chief from the general neglect of instructing the younger sort of persons; or their erroneous instructions in the Grounds and Principles of true Religion, is therefore pleased to command me, that in his name I require your Lordship, and by you the rest of my Brethren the Bishops of this Province, that by yourselves and Officers, you will at all seasonable times reinforce the execution of such Laws and Constitutions, as enable Us to enjoin the Use and Exercise of our Church-Catechism, and that by the most effectual remedies that may be; such as without Licence either publicly or privately teach School within your Lordships or their jurisdiction, be forthwith proceeded against according to such rules as are prescribed unto Us for their restraint; and to the end that this mischief may be prevented for the future, He moreover strictly chargeth us that none be admitted to that office without Subscription, Oaths, and Declaration as are exactly requisite; but in the mean time I desire that your Lordship and They, will with the first conveniency let me know how we are already defective in these particulars, that I may be able to give such satisfaction as hereafter will be necessary. I bid your Lordship hearty farewel.  
Lambeth House, Feb. 6. 167●. Your Lordships very Affectionate Friend and Brother. Guil. Cant.  
Your Lordship does hereby fully understand his Majesty's pleasure, which I am required to let you know.  
London-House, Feb. 8. 167●. Your Lordship's very loving Brother and Servant. Humfr. London.   

Mr. Archdeacon.  
YOU hereby fully understand his Majesty's pleasure which I know not how better to communicate to the Clergy with in my Diocese, than by yourself, you being the most proper officer in my absence; the manner of doing this I shall wholly leave to your own discretion, and desire that with all convenient speed, you would give me some account of what you have done herein, that I may be able to give such satisfaction as hereafter may be required by his Majesty, from  
Whitehall, April. 26. 1673. Your very affectionate Friend. N. Oxon.   

THE Questions I sent the Bishop of Oxon, were 1. Whether by Sects (in my Lord of Canterbury's Letter) Papists were (as well as others) included? 2. And whether their Children, etc. should be summoned by the Minister to be Catechised? And 3. In case they come not, what punishment? 4. Whether Popish Schoolmasters might teach without Licence, & c?   

Mr. .  
YOU have put some Questions to me, which I believe have not been put to any other Bishop, and therefore I shall not take upon me to give any other answer than this, that I have no Commission to make any Comment or Explanation upon my Lord of Canterbury's Letter which was sent to me, but only to Communicate it to the Clergy. Your speedy care in this will be necessary; whether you are willing to appear in person concerning it, or to distribute such Copies of it as are requisite, I leave to your own choice, but I pray fail not the doing of it. I am  
Sir, Your very affectionate Friend. N. Oxon. Whitehall, May 10. 1673.   

An Answer to My Lord's Letter of May 10. 1673.  
Right Reverend, etc.  
I Have received your Lordship's Letter and Commands, in obedience to which I have now communicated the Letters your Lordship sent, to the Clergy of your Diocese. I did not think it convenient to summon them all to meet at Oxon (or any other place) because that might be some trouble and charge to them; nor had I any thing to say, or do, save only to deliver Letters to them: the way I took, was this: There being eight Deaneries in your Diocese, I transcribed eight Copies of those Letters, and sent one (enclosed in a Letter of my own, a Copy of which I here send) to every Deanery directing it to some prime Minister of that Deanery, and making the apparitor signify to the rest of the Ministers of that Deanery, in whose hands those Letters were lodged, that they might come, and (if they pleased) take a Copy, or (at least) for their directions read them. Further (though your Lordship has given me no directions or command to do it) I have commanded the Apparitors, to bring me a List of those, who (publicly or privately) teach School, in this Diocese: which (so soon as they have finished) I shall send to your Lordship; and (in the mean time) I shall inquire (and know) who have, and who have not legal Licences to teach School, and then give your Lordship an account of it. When your Lordship shall be pleased to communicate any further commands, though many have more discretion and ability to execute them, than I do (or can) pretend to, yet your Lordship may be assured of this, that none shall, with more honour and respect to your place and person, or with more diligence and fidelity, endeavour it.  
Having said this, I humbly crave leave to speak freely, as to my Spiritual Father, and my Friend. Your Lordship seems to be displeased with the questions (a resolution of which I desired in my last) as being such, as had not been put to any Bishop, nor fit to be answered by your Lordship. They were put to me, by as learned and pious persons as any in the Diocese, men who are ready to do their Duty, but they desire (as in reason they ought) to know of their Guides and Governors, the bounds and measures of that Duty they would have done. This they cannot know, or (any way) learn out of the Letters sent down, in which there is no command which concerns the Duty of the Inferior Clergy in any Diocese. His Majesty's command in my Lord of Canterbury's Letter, concerns my Lords the Bishops only— That they should enjoin Catechising according to the Laws and Constitutions, which enable them so to do. Those Constitutions (whatever they be) are the Rule of the Bishop's Power, (who is to enjoin them) and the Clergies Duty (who are to obey;) But what those Constitutions are, the Letters mention not: that is left to my Lords the Bishops. As they best know, what Canons and Constitutions enable them to enjoin Catechising, so they ought to signify to their inferior Clergy, what Canons they are, which they would have put in execution; that (by them) they may first know their Duty, and then do it. It being impossible that they (or any) should obey Constitutions, before they be made known to them, by those who enjoin and expect obedience. As the inferior Clergy, in dubious cases, are (in Prudence and Conscience) bond to desire the directions of their Superiors (their Guides and Governors;) so their Superiors are (by the same obligations) bond to give them directions. We have several Laws and Constitutions Ecclesiastical, concerning Catechising, which (in some things) clash and contradict one another. It is not probable that every one of the Inferior Clergy, should know all those Constitutions, and less probable that every one should be able to reconcile the real or seeming Contradictions; and so certainly know what remains, as a Duty to be done without directions from his Superiors. I humbly beg your Lordship's pardon for this tedious, and (I fear) impertinent scribble, and your Paternal Benediction for,  
My Lord, Your Lordship's most obliged faithful Servant. Tho. Barlow. Q. Coll. Oxon. May 29. 1673.   

Sir J. B. having sent to Bishop Barlow a Lecture before the Royal Society on the 26th of Novemb. 1674. Printed in Twelves, his Lordship sent him the following answer.  
Sir,  
I thank you for the Discourse you sent me; but am sorry so ingenious a person should write, or others should approve it: for that I may freely (and sub sigillo to you) say what I think and know: though there be several things in it ingeniously said; yet there be too several things highly irrational, and indeed most metaphysical Nonsense, and some things (I fear) impious, if not plainly Atheistical: we are told, pag. 15. That place is the IMAGE, or FANCY of Matter, or Matter considered. If this be true, than 1. Seeing all such Fancies are only in the Soul, Therefore to be in a place, is to be in a Fancy, and therefore in the Soul, where all such Fancies are, and cannot possibly be elsewhere.  
2. Motion (he says page 26.) is change of place. Now, if Place be Fancy; then if the Sun change its place, it is only a change of fancy, and a change of fancy will be a motion or change of place: and then (if men change their Fancies, who only have Fancies to change) the Sun may stand still, and the Earth move. For (you know) there have been, and still are, who strongly fancy the Sun to stand still, and the Earth to move; and others, who as strongly fancy the contrary. Now I would fain know which of their fancies is the place of Sun or Earth? and (if either) why the one more than the other? and if neither then place is not a fancy (as is pretended) and therefore the definition itself is but a fancy, and a wild one too.  
3. We are told also (pag. 15.) that a place, is Matter considered; Ergo If matter be not considered, it is in no place. Ergo Horse or Man, Sun and Moon, and the World, when not considered, are in no place, and therefore no where, for quod nusquam est, non est.  
4. He tells us there, (pag. 15.) That quantity is the fancy of place, and therefore all quantity must be where the fancy is, and fancies can be no where but in the Soul (which being a Spirit is capable of none;) and therefore no quantity can be (extra animam) in any body whatever.  
5. To say that place is matter considered; is to say, that the place of a Dog, is a Dog considered: and then all those things in the World which are unknown to Us, and therefore cannot be considered, must therefore be in no place, and therefore not in the World.  
5. He says (pag. 17, 18.) That ALL the FIRST matter of the World are Atom's, immutable in magnitude and figure. 2. That many of them joined make a Visible object. 3. That this juncture is made by their own INNATE Motion.  
Now 1. How well this agrees with Moses, Gen. 1. do you judge.  
2. If such Atoms be the first matter of all things, and by meeting of them all visible bodies be made, and they meet and are joined by their own innate motion; then 'tis evident Adam was made of such Atoms, and they met in him, (not by God's appointment, and Divine-creating-power) but by their own innate power, and so Epicurus (a Pagan Philosopher) and his Hypothesis, shall have more truth and credit, than the Divine History of the Creation by Moses. And how far this (if believed) may make for Atheism, a denying of Scripture, and the Divine Power, and Providence of our infinitely good and gracious God, do you judge: certainly if Atoms (or matter immutable in magnitude and figure, as he says) be the first matter of the World, they must of necessity be either. 1. Eternal, without, or 2. Temporal, with a beginning. To say, that those Atoms are Eternal, is to deny the Christians 
(a) Symbolum Athanasii in our Liturgy (and all Christian Churches) received; and in our Articles, 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 itself, and without all beginning, must (of necessity) be infinite, (for nothing can give finitude or bounds to itself; and whatever is eternal, cannot possibly have any thing before it, to give it bounds, (and 'tis 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) than 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 Atoms.  
Now he tells us (p. 124.) that perhaps a 
* In minimo corpusculo continentur multae Atomorum Myriad. vid. Philosophiam Epicuri, per Gassendum, cap. 6. p. 39 Edit. Londini, Anno. 1660.  Million of those Atoms 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 Atoms are Eternal, brings in a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a multiplicity of Gods, and so denies the only true God; for more than one true God there cannot be.  
2. He says those Atoms 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 Atoms 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 Atoms. 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 (quoth Ithacus Velit) and (without hope of reward or thanks) ruin ourselves gratis, whilst others (by Authority and Duty) obliged to suppress such opinions, and punish their Authors, betray their trust and truth, and either knowingly Licence, (which I am loath to think) or negligently permit such Apocryphal and Erroneous positions to be published, 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 yourself, 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 mentioned. I confess I am, and (a long time) have been not a little troubled, to see Protestants, nay Clergymen, 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 ruin 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 ecclesiastics 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 Heretics (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 Heretics may (with much more ease) be rooted out and ruined. Since which time, Papists (especially the Jesuits) have promoted this New-Philosophy (and their new design to ruin 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, etc.) 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 Jesuits 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, etc.) to inquire, whether the Jesuits, in their Colleges, trained 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 Schoolmen, Casuists, and Controversy-Writers have so mixed Aristotle's Philosophy, with their Divinity; that he who has not a comprehension of Aristotle's Principles, and the use of them, in all Scholastic 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 Divinity; they will (in all Divinity Disputations) be every way too hard for us. Just so, as in this case: If I should challenge a Man to fight a Duel with me, in the Field; and when we met there, if I could persuade him to cast away his Sword, (or keep him from having any skill to use it) I should certainly be too hard for him. A comprehension of the Principles of the old Philosophy, and School-Divinity, is a Weapon so necessary, for a rational defence of any Question against Rome; that he who wants it, disables himself to defend (and so betrays) the Truth: and this is unhappily manifest in many of our late Scribblers, etc. I am  
Sir, Your Affectionate Friend and Servant. T. B.   

Sir,  
FOR the Case you propose, concerning a Coadjutor for an honest and learned infirm and sick Bishop; I have neither time, nor ability to say much, or any thing considerable. I received yours late the last Night, I consulted my Notes; and I find 
(a) Augustin. Barbosa de Canonicis & Dignitatibus, etc. Lugduni Ann. 1658.  a learned and late Canonist, has very much about Co-adjutors; but it is for Co-adjutors to Arch-deacons, and dignifyed men, below the Order of Bishops. But Cardinal 
(b) Tuschus Conclus. Practicarum Juris. litera C. verb Coadjutor. Conclus. 402, 403.  Tuschus has many things about Co-adjutors to Bishops; whom you well know, and may (at your leisure) consult.  
Whether our Provincial or Legatine Constitutions, or Linwood or John de Aton in their Glosses upon them, have any thing concerning Co-adjutors, or no, I have no time to seek. If they have, it must be under the word Coadjutor or Suffraganeus. For I find that in the Canon Law, he who is usually called Coadjutor, is also called 
(c) Cap. Suffraganei. 11. extra. de electione, & electi protestate.  Suffraganeus, and (I doubt not but) the Gloss and Panormitan upon the Chapter, will tell you more. But that which will most effectually do your business in this particular, concerning a Co-adjutor, is the Statute of Henry 
(d) Statut. 26. Hen. 8. cap. 24.  the VIII. which is still in force. For although it was abrogated in Queen 
(e) 1, & 2. Phil. & Mar. cap. 8.  Mary's time, yet it was received in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and so is now 
(f) 1 Eliz. cap. 2.  obligatory. By which Statute it appears.  
1. That for a Bishop to have a Co-adjutor, or (as the Statute calls him) a Suffragan to assist him, was no new thing, but of ancient use, in England, before Henry the VIII.  
2. That any Bishop, not only in England, but any of the King's Dominions (and therefore in Ireland) might, if he desired it, have a suffragan.  
3. That such Suffragan or Co-adjutor, was to have no Revenue, or Jurisdiction, in his Diocese, whose Suffragan he was; save what the Bishop should by Commission under his Seal allow him, and only for such time as he allowed.  
4. That such Suffragan, for his better maintenance, might keep any two Live with cure.  
5. And his residing in the Diocese of which he was the Suffragan, should free him from residence on any Living he had with cure.  
6. But then he who desired a Suffragan, was to name two to the King, and he was to approve one, (the Pope did it before,) who was to be consecrated by the Metropolitan, and really made a Bishop.  
By the Premises, and the foregoing Statute, which is still in force and obligatory; it may (and I believe) does manifestly appear;  
1. That a Co-adjutor or Suffragan Bishop is, quoad Ordinem, really and properly a Bishop, being consecrated to that office by his Metropolitan.  
2. That he has Liberam Ordinis executionem, he may Ordain and Confirm, etc. in that Diocese, where he is a Suffragan.  
3. That being really a Bishop, he may validly Ordain and Confirm, and (with the leave of the Bishop of the Diocese) lawfully too, in any other Diocese.  
4. That to be such a Bishop, and able to execute the Episcopal Office, in all the parts of it, is a great honour to him, for (whatever our fanatics may now say to the contrary) the whole Christian World for 1500. years, judged it so; and (a few Scotch and Fierce Presbyterians, and Independents only excepted) even the Protestant Churches beyond the Seas, who have no Bishops, are of the same judgement.  
5. To be such a Suffragan Bishop, will be a great profit and privilege to him. For besides what the Bishop whose Co-adjutor he is, will allow him; he may hold two Live, with the privilege of Nonresidence.  
6. If he demean himself piously and diligently, in his Office, as a Suffragan; it will be a great and most probable means to prefer him to a Bishopric of his own, which may be to many a great encouragement, to undertake the Office of a Suffragan.  
7. And this Law and Statute is a good security to him, who has a Suffragan; seeing that Suffragan can have no more Revenue or Jurisdiction, or for any longer time, than is conveyed to him by the commission of him, whose Suffragan he is.  
8. To have such a Suffragan, is the most conscientious and safe way, that Pious and Learned Prelate you mention, can take, in this his sickness and infirmity. For if none of our Bishops, this hundred years, have been condemned, for not executing the Offices of their Calling, when Sickness, Age and Infirmities disabled them, although they had no Co-adjutor; certainly, your friend will be commended, who carefully provides a Suffragan to do those things which (through sickness and infirmities) he could not do himself.  
Your affectionate Friend and humble Servant. T. L.   

My Honoured Friend;  
THE two Queries you proposed, (and require my Opinion, and Answer) are these; 1. Of the Original of Sine-Cures, and the Reason and End of their Constitution. 2. Concerning Pensions paid out of Ecclesiastical Benefices.  
For the first; The Original of Sine-Cures, is, (at least to me) like that of Nilus.— Natura maluit ortus mirari, quam nosse tuos. That there are Sine-Cures, we all know, but when they begun, or how they came, few, or (may be) none of us can distinctly determine. However, (in obedience to your command) I shall say something, though (may be) not much to your satisfaction.  
1. Then, 'tis certain, that a Sine Cure is Beneficium Ecclesiasticum, consisting of Tithes, Glebe-Land, etc. and so of some part of the Sacred Patrimony of the Church.  
2. It's confessed too, and received for certain, on this side, and beyond the Sea, (by our own, and the Canon Lawyers) that Beneficium Ecclesiasticum, is either 1. 
(a) Vide Duarenum, De Beneficiis, lib. 2. cap. 5, 6, 7, 8. Card. Tuschum Conclus. Practicarum Juris, Tom. 1. verbo Beneficium Conclus. 60, 63.  Cum dignitate, as a Bishopric, Arch-Deaconry, etc. 2. Cum Cura, sine dignitate, ut Paraecia, a Rectory, or Vicary. 3. Sine dignitate, & Cura, quae Beneficia nuda & simplicia dicuntur; ut Praebendae & Canonicatus. Thus Duarenus, Card. Tuschus, and the Roman Canonists. So that (with them) a Sine-Cure is an Ecclesiastical Living, without Dignity, or Cure of Souls. And the 
(b) Statut. 21 Hen 8. cap. 13 in the last Proviso save four.  Law of England has (much to the same purpose) told us, in express terms, That Deanrys, Arch Deaconrys, Chancellorships, Treasurerships, Chanterships, (Chancellors, Treasurers, and Chanters in Cathedral Churches are meant;) prebend's, in any Church; Parsonages, where a Vicar is endowed, and all perpetually 
(c) Appropriations was the word then, the word Impropriation was unheard of, till Abbeys were pulled down, and ●●●tories and Tithes ca●● 〈◊〉 ●●y-mens hands, 〈…〉.  appropriated Benefices, are Sine-Cures. So that our Law acknowledges many kinds of Sine-Cures, more than there are, in our vulgar, and common acceptation of that word. For we commonly take Sine-Cures, for Parochial Tithes and Glebe-Land, the Ecclesiastical Revenue of a Parish (or some part of it) possessed by some one person who takes no pains for it, nor has any Cure of Souls. However this Statute may give us any Authentic ground to state the Question, as to that part of it, what a Sine-Cure is? Thus 
(d) How Appropriations came in? See Selden of Tithes cap. 6. § 3, 4.  Appropriation (the word in the Statute) is the Alienation of Tithes, and the Church-Revenue (Glebe-Land, Oblations, etc.) from the Parochial Incumbent, to some body else. And this twofold, 1. So that the Cure of Souls was likewise alienated, and went along with the Appropriation, and charged on those to whom such impropriation was made. And thus it happened in all Appropriations, where no Vicar was endowed; for then those who had the Appropriation, were bound to see the Cure supplied. And such Appropriations could not be called Sine-Cures; because the Cure of those Souls in the Parish whose Tithes were appropriated, lay upon those who had the Appropriation. 2. When there was a Vicar endowed, on whom the Cure of Souls lay; and the Appropriation was properly a Sine-Cure; because they who had the Appropriation, possessed the Sacred Patrimony of the Parish, without any Cure of Souls annexed.  
A Sine-Cure then (in general) is, and consists in the Ecclesiastical Revenue of a Parish (or part of it) alienated from the Parochial Incumbent, (and appropriated to some other) where there is a Vicar endowed, to whom the Cure of Souls belongs; so that those who possessed the Appropriation are Sine-Cure, and freed from the Cure of Souls. I say, the whole, or part of the Revenue, may be alienated, and appropriated in such Sine Curâ. If the whole Tithes, and Glebe-Land, and other Obventions be appropriated, than the Vicar, on whom the Cure of Souls lies, must be endowed with a set and certain stipend in 
(a) So Vpton-Gray in Hampshire is an Appropriation belonging to Q. Coll. in Oxon. the College has all the Tithes, and the Vicar 20 l. per Annum in money.  Money; so as they who possessed the Appropriation enjoy the whole Parochial Revenue. If only some part of the Parochial Revenue be appropriate, than the remainder is the endowment of the Vicar, whether it be in the small Tithes, Easter-Book, etc. (which is the usual endowment of Vicaridges) or whether the Parish be divided, so as all the Tithes (great and small) of part of the Parish, be Assigned to the Vicar, and all the rest (great and small) appropriated. As in some Sine-Cures in Wales in the Diocese of St. Asaph, the Tithes (of some Towns and Villages (great and small) are appropriated; and all the remainder of Tithes great or small) of other Villages, belong to the Vicar. Now such alienation and appropriati●● of all or part of the Tithes, where there is a Vicarage endowed, (which is properly a Sine Cure) may be either,  
1. To a Corporation or Soeiety, as to Colleges, Abbeys, Monasteries, Nunneries, Hospitals, etc. (for many such appropriations were made, and approved in the 
(b) Gratian. Can. Quoniam 68 Caus. 26. Quest. 1. Gratian citys Hierome for it; but Hierome has no such thing, nor were Tithes heard of in his time. I confess, that Juo Carnotens. has that same thing which Gratian says, Epist. 207. writ about the year, 1130.  Canon-Law;) and the best of our Rectories in England were thus appropriated.  
2. To particular Persons, 
Note, The Live in England were 9284. of these, 3845. (and the best of them, you may be sure) were appropriated to Societies, or single persons. Weever's Funeral Monuments. p. 183. Edit. Lond. 1631.  as to an Archdeacon; so the Rectory of Iphlay to the  of Oxon, (there is a Vicarage (but meanly) endowed) to which the Arch Deacon has no Institution. Or to a Canon or Prebend of a Church, so many prebend's in Cathedral Churches are founded in some Living appropriate, which is their Corpse, and the Principal part of their Revenue. Or to some public Professor; so the Rectory of Shipton near Oxon, to our Law Professor, (though a Layman) who is not capable of Presentation or Institution, as even our common 
(c) hobart's reports 1631. p. 149.  Lawyers confess.  
And it must be further noted, that such Sine-Cures, which might be, and were, and are given to single persons; are either,  
1. Such as were given to a Succession of Persons, in such an Office; as to an Archdeacon, Canon or Prebend, or a Professor of Law, in the University, etc. and such Sine-Cures are rather given to the Office, to which they are appendent; and to the person only, as he is in that Office.  
2. Or such as were, and are given particularly to a person for his life; and after his Death, may be given to any other person, whom the Patron shall think fit: whether the Patron 
(d) Vid. Linwo●d de cohabit. Clericorum & mulier. ut Clericatus. Verbo, Beneficiati in Glossà. Provincial. lib 3. p. 64. Edit. Paris. 1505.  be the King, a Bishop, or 
(b) That Laymen held Ti●bes and the Ecclesiastical Revenues of Churches, by the gift of the King and Laymen without institution or induction (which were Sine-Cures) and he says, that they held them, non ●t be eficium; sed prop●ietatem; and therefore as Lay-fees. How justly, I dispute not now. Linwood. loc. dicto.  Layman. For the King (I have heard) has some such Sine-Cures in his gift. The Bishop of St. Asaph, has about 25, or 26. in his gift, and the Earl of Thanet gave me the Sine-Cure of Hartfield in Sussex, worth clearly 200 l. per Annum, Though I received only 60. l. per Annum; and let the Vicar (an honest able man, who Preached twice a day, and served the Cure) to receive all the rest.  
3. And if it be demanded how particular persons (and sometimes Laymen) came to have such portions of Tithes and Rectories (as Sine-Cures) given to them? Linwood there tells us— 
(f) Linwood Ibidem verbo, Beneficiati. in principio.  SAEPE VIDEMUS (it was, it seems an usual thing then) quod CLERICIS ETIAM de bonis Ecclesiasticis, in certis redditibus percipiendis, quaedam assignantur, ad suam exhibitionem & sustentationem, pro certis laboribus & oneribus subeundis, ad ipsorum vitam, etc. And I have been told (by a good Civilian) that such Sine-Cures have been made, and given to some Priest (in the time of Popery) to maintain him at Rome, (and in his Journey thither) that he might buy and learn there the Arts of that cunning Court, solicit business, and be serviceable to his Country and Friends at home.  
Lastly, But if it be demanded concerning the Original of appropriating Parochial Tithes, and making Rectories of Sine-Cures? I say, 1. We never hear of Tithes for many Ages, in the Primitive Church. In the 
(g) Extat gr. lat. in 8vo. per Justellum Paris. 1610. & in Bibliotheca Juris Canonici Veteris, per Justellum. Par. 1661.  Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Universae (the most Authentic Book in the World, next the Bible) which contains the Canons received by the Universal Church, till the year 451. there is not one word of Tithes. The Clergy were then liberally maintained, by the free oblations (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they called them) of the people. The People's Charity and kindness to the Clergy, was great then, and so were their oblations for their maintenance. But the case is much altered; and the people so far from giving freely, that they will seldom pay, what is (by law) due; sure the people than were much better Christians, or we of the Clergy now worse.  
2. But I find not Tithes, (and the payment of them) established here in England, till the end 
(h) By King Offa's Charter. Anno. 786. See Selden of Tithes, cap. 8. § 2. p. 198.  of the eighth or the middle of the ninth 
(i) Selden, Ibidem. § 4. pag. 204. & pag. 209.  Century; and the division of England into Parishes, not before Honorius Archbishop of Canterbury, and the year 636. so that the division of Parishes being so late, and Tithes not established, till the end of the eighth or middle of the ninth Century; 'tis certain, that the appropriation of Tithes, could not be before Tithes and Parishes were established: but how soon after they came to be alienated, and made Sine-Cures, I know not, nor have I time to search.  
One thing material in this business of Sine-Cures is: that heretofore Donatives and Sine-Cures, might be in laymen's hands. Since our late Act of Uniformity. 14. Car. 2. none but a Priest is made capable of them: a Layman (by that Act) is made incapable; see the § Be it further enacted. Next after the Declaration against the Covenant, etc.  
I am Sir, Your affectionate Friend and Servant. T. L.   

My honoured Friend,  
IN a former Letter, you asked a Question about Pensions paid to others, out of Ecclesiastical Live? about the payment of them, at home, and abroad?  
The Question may be 1. De facto, what has been done in this case. 2. De Jure, what justly might be done.  
Now, de Facto, 'tis evident, that Pensions have been paid out of Ecclesiastical Live.  
1. To the Pope, as Annatae, Primitiae, Anni primi fructus, or first fruits. And I find the Canonists call them (in the Neuter Gender) 
(a) Dua●●nus de Beneficiis. lib. 6. cap. 4. p. 83.  Annuum, so that Annuum solvere, signifies the same as Annatas, primitias, aut unius Anni fructus solvere: When these Annats 
(b) Sanctio Pragmaticae cum Gl●ssis. Paris. 1613. p. 1009. & in Editione ultimâ. Paris. 1666. p. 468.  began, how they were 
(c) Vid dictam Sanctionem, Edit. 1613. p. 630, 631, etc. fuse, & Editionis, 1666. p. 465, etc.  paid, and condemned at home and abroad, the Authors in the Margin tell us, especially the Sanctio Pragnatica (Caroli 7. Galliarum Regis) and the large Glosses upon it, in the places cited. And (to omit others) 
(d) Lib. 6. cap. 3, 4. & sequentibus.  Duarenus de Beneficiis, has fully handled the business of Annats. And (you know) cowel's Interpreter, Verbo, Annats, and Spelman's Glossary, Verbo, Annatae, give an account of them. So does my Lord 
(e) Institut. part. 4. p. 120.  Cook too, In whom we may clearly see, that the Story Spelman has out of Platina (that Annats were first brought in by Boniface. 9 Anno 1400.) is untrue; for Annats demanded here in England, and denied by Ed. 3. in the second year of his reign, which was Anno Christi 1327. and so 73 years before.  
But though the Council of 
(f) Concil. Basiliense, An. 1431. Sessio. 21.  Basil damned the payment of Annats; yet they were paid here, till Hen. VIII. 
(g) Statut. 26. Hen. 8. cap. 3. H. 1. Eliz. cap. 4.  annexed them for ever to the Crown. Miseris malorum altior sensus, I speak this more feelingly, because I am to pay the King above 800 l. for these scurvy Popish Annats.  
2. Besides, Decimae, or Tenths were paid to the Pope, and now to our Kings, and are likely to be so for ever, for our Statutes call it, 
(h) Statut. An. 2. & 3. cap. 35. and in the end of the Sanctio Pragmatica Edite Paris. 1613. pag. 1009. we are told, that the K. of France has the Tenths which the Pope had before.  a perpetual Disme, and for ever, 26. Hen. VIII. chap. 3.  
3. Besides these, there were many other payments out of Ecclesiastical Live; which they called Corrodia, 
(i) Othoboni Constitutio. Vo●entes. Verbo, Liberationes.  Liberationes (so they were commonly called, at least here in England.) Now for these Corrodia, Liberationes or Pensiones (for by all these names they are called) we may have the whole nature of them explained (as what they were, who might impose them, on whom, for how long, etc.) in many Authors (Foreign and Domestic, of our own and other Nations;) I shall only name a few; and in reading them you will find a hundred more cited who writ on the same subject.  
1. In the Canon-Law, (which you know better than I) Decret. Greg. lib. 3. Tit. 39 De Censibus, Exact. & Procurat, there are many chap. about this business. As cap. Scientes. 3. and cap. 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, etc.  
2. Panormitan on those Chapters; and Cardinal Turrecremata, ad Can. Quaesitum est. 4. Caus. 1. Quaest. 3.  
3. Linwood Provincial. lib. 2. De Rebus Ecclesiae non alienandis. cap. ut secundum, 2.  
4. Othoboni Constitutio. Quia plerumqu; De his, qui pactionem faciunt cum praesentato. mihi pag. 105. cum Glossis Johan. De Aton Canonici Lincolinensis: & ejusdem Othoboni Constitutio. Volentes. Quod nulli Religiosi vendant, vel assignent aliis Liberationes, seu Corrodia. Ita enim habet summarium, dictae constitutioni praefixum, pag. 126. Col. 3.  
5. cowel's Interpreter. Verbo, Corrodium. Spelman's Glossary: verbo, corrodium.  
6. Duarenus de Beneficiis, lib. 6. cap. 3, 4, etc.  
7. And (to omit others) Covarruvius Institutionum Moralium, Tom. 2. lib. 8. cap. 5, 6, 7, etc. fully explains this whole business about Ecclesiastical Pensions, what they are, and how far permitted in the Roman-Church.  
1. In England, the King has by 
(a) Statut. 26. Hen. 8. cap. 3. & 1. Elizab. cap. 4.  Law, out of Ecclesiastical Dignities and Live;  
1. Primitiae, Annatae, or first fruits of all Archbishoprics, etc.  
2. Tenths of all Vicaridges (as well as Archbishoprics, Bishoprics, etc.) above 
* In the Statute 26. Hen. 8. cap. 3. in the last Proviso save two; entry Parsonage, or Vicarage above 8. Marks in the King's Books, paid first fruits, etc.  10 l. per Annum, in the King's Books; and of all Personages above 8. Marks in the said Books.  
3. There besides these, many Corrodies, Pensions and Annual Fees (named so in 
(b) Statut. 1. Eliz. cap 4.  the Statutes) are payable to the King out of many Ecclesiastical Live.  
2. Not only the Kings, but Bishops now have many Pensions payable to them out of Ecclesiastical Dignities, and Parsonages, Vicarages, Hospitals, etc. so the Bishop of Lincoln (your servant) has many small Pensions (many great Manors being taken from that Bishopric) which we call sometime praestations, sometime Pensions, paid to him.  
1. By the 6. Arch-Deacons in that Diocese, some paying 5. l. some 10. l. per Annum, some more.  
2. By about 150. Parsonages, Vicarages, Hospitals, etc. the Pensions small. And I know, that other Bishoprics and Colleges, etc. have such Pensions payable to them out of Ecclesiastical and Parochial Benefices.  
3. And it seems, that anciently the Bishops and Ordinaries had power to lay such Pensions upon Benefices; (The 
(a) Statut. 26. Hen. 8. cap. 3. § And be it also ordained.  Statute implies as much) provided, it were not above one third part of the value of the whole Benefice. But then (the Popish lawyers 
(b) Covar ruvius Institut. Moralium Tom. 2. lib. 8. cap. 6. p. 943, 945.  tell us, that) there is Pensio duplex.  
1. Quae Beneficio imponitur, which is perpetual, and paid out of the Benefice successively, who ever be Incumbent: and they say no Bishop can lay any such Pension on a Benefice.  
2. Quae Beneficiario imponitur, and this is temporary, payable only by that person on whom it is imposed; and when he dies, ceaseth. And they grant, Bishops might impose such Pensions.  
4. De Facto, thus it was; But Quaeritur de Jure. What's past, I shall not question. What has been done heretofore, they who did it, have (before this) answered for it. But pro futuro, I conceive neither the King, (nor any other much less) can lay any such pension upon any Ecclesiastical Living, so as to oblige the present incumbent to pay it.  
1. Because it is against our Magna Charta, 
(c) 25. Ed. 1. cap. 6. And the Statute de T●llagio non conc●dendo. cap. 1. In my Lord Cook's Institut. part. 2. p. 532.  and many Statutes, to take from any Subject, any part or penny of what's theirs, without their consent in Parliament.  
2. And (if I may speak freely what I think) I believe, 'tis not in the power of the Parliament, to alienate any of the Church Revenue, to any other use, than that sacred one to which they were given: and this I believe is demonstrable from the principles of Nature and Scripture, from the Civil, Canon, and our Common-Lawers; and from principles received by Divines and Lawyers of all Conditions and Countries. But to prove this Heretical position (for so many think it) will require more pains and paper (and possibly more abilities) than you expect, or are like to find in.  
Oxon Sept. 29. 1676. Your faithful Friend and Servant. T. L.   

Sir,  
ONE thing (in your last) about first Fruits, and Tenths, I forgot in my Answer to your long and kind Letter: and have now only time to tell you, (what, I believe, you better know) that what we commonly call first-fruits the Popish Canonists call Annatae, or Annates; because they were one years' Revenue, of all vacant Ecclesiastical Benefices, paid to the Pope. To which he had no right, by any Law of God or Man, but by Tyranny and unjust usurpation, and great oppression of the poor Clergy.  
When Hen. VIII. (by Statute) forbade Annates and Tenths to be any more paid to the Pope; the Act passed, with great willingness and joy to the Clergy; who believed, that they should never pay them any more. But this they were mistaken in; for what the Pope had most tyranically, and (by oppression) most injustly got, Hen. VIII. kept to himself. So that the burden lies still heavy upon the Clergy, only (the Pope being cast off) they have a better Landlord.  
But I need not say any more of Annats or Tenths; you know that Spelman, 
(a) In Glossario. Verbo, Annatae.  Cowel, 
(b) His Interpreter. Verbo Annats.  my Lord Cook, 
(c) Institutes, part. 4. p. 120.  Bzovius, 
(d) In Continuatione Annalium Baronii, Tom. 15. ad Annum, 1397. § 4. p. 143, Col. 2.  The Gallican Sanctio Pragmatica, 
(e) Sanctio Pragmatica cum Glossis. Paris. 1666. p. 468. Col. 2. C.D. & eadem Sanctio Edita Paris. Anno. 1613. p. 1009 & Concilium Basiliense. Sess. 21. De Annatis.  with its Glosses, and many others, have given us a full account of their Original, and the Injustice and iniquity of that Papal Imposition.  
Sure I am, that in Impropriate Live, the payment of Tenths, usually lies on the poor Vicars, who (as you well observe) since the Reformation, and the ceasing of Oblations, (which in times of Popery, were very great,) are many of them so very poor, that none will take Institution to them, that making them liable to pay Tenths; and therefore we are necessitated, to let them hold such small Live by Sequestration, otherwise the poor people can have no Preaching or Prayers.  
It were a great work of Charity, worthy the care and piety of our gracious King and Parliament, to find a Remedy for this, etc. I am,  
Buckden Jan. 2. 1682. Your affectionate Friend and Servant. Tho. Lincoln.   

A Letter of the vast Subsidy given by the Clergy to Henry the VIII.  
Sir,  
WHAT you say, of the Susidy the Clergy gave to Henry V in Chichley's time, That you cannot find what, and how much it came to; I am of your opinion, (and for the reason you give) that the particular sum it came to, cannot now be distinctly known.  
But I can tell you of a far greater Subsidy given to Hen. VIII. in Woolsey's time by the Convocation, Anno. 1523. which was no less than one entire half of every Ecclesiastical Persons Revenue, for one year.  
This all Natives of England paid to the King; and all Strangers beneficed in England, (and of such there were then many) paid one whole years Revenue, (only Erasmus, Polydore, Virgil, and three or four more, who had Ecclesiastical Preferments here, excepted;) now do you Judge, what a vast sum this must make, when all Natives of England gave one half years revenue of all their Ecclesiastical Preferments, and all Strangers (some few excepted) gave one whole years Revenue. This Dr. Burnet tell's you in the 1. part of his History of the Reformation, p. 21. And gives you the Authentic Record for it, in the end of that first part of his History, amongst the Collection of Records, lib. 1. num. 5. page 7, 8. where you will have the motives, which moved the Clergy then to give such a prodigious subsidy.  
I can say no more at present, save that I am,  
Your affectionate friend and obliged servant. Tho. Lincoln.   

A Letter to Mr. R. S.  
WHAT you say of our late Antiquities, is too true; we are alarmed by many Letters, not only of false Latin, but false English too, and many bad Characters cast on good Men, especially on the Anti-Arminians, who are all (especially Dr. Prideaux) made seditious persons, Schismatics, if not Heretics; nay our first Reformers (out of Pet. Heylin's angry and (to our Church and Truth) scandalous writings) are made fanatics. This they tell me, and our Judges of assize (now in Town) say no less.  
I have not read one leaf of the Book yet; but (I see) I shall be necessitated to read it over, that I may with my own Eyes see the faults, and (so far as I am able) endeavour the mending of them. Nor do I know any other way, but a new Edition, with a real correction of all faults, and a declaration that those miscarriages cannot justly be imputed to the University (as indeed they cannot) but to the passion and imprudence (if not impiety) of one or two, who betrayed the trust reposed in them, in the managing the Edition of that Book. I am of your opinion, that if good Dr. C. would finish and communicate his animadversions, he would do a kind office, (p●us vident oculi quam oculus;) though (I hope) we shall (being now awakened) set those to work about that Book, whose eyes and care will be critical enough, to see (without Spectacles) and (without partiality) to correct the errors, which either ignorance or disorderly passions have produced.  
God Almighty bless you, all yours, and  
(Sir,) Your most obliged, faithful and thankful Servant. T. B.   

Another Letter to Mr. R. S. about the same Subject.  
Sir,  
FOR the Antiquitates Universitatis Oxon. (which you mention) The Author was one Mr. Wood, of Merton College, who writ them in English; but they were put into Latin at Christ-Church, by the Order and authority of the Dean. And (as you truly observe) the Latin is very bad, and indeed very 
(a) In the Epistle to the King, in the beginning of it, Commentariis boni consulat, is not Latin, etc.  false many times. The Translators subscribe the Author's Epistle with his name (which in English was Anthony Wood) Antonius a Wood; had they said, Antonius a Sylva, it had been Latin, but Antonius a Wood, is neither Latin nor Sense.  
The truth is, not only the Latin, but the History itself, is in many things ridiculously false, p. 114. libri 2. They say that Burgus subtus Stainesmoram, is in Cumberland; whereas all know that it is in Westmoreland, about 20. miles distant from Cumberland. In that 2. Book, pag. 122. They say, that I was born in vico vocato Orton: whereas I was born in no Village at all, but in a single house, two miles from Orton. In the 1. Book of those Antiquities, p. 285, 286. you have a story told (in English and Latin) to make our Reformation and Reformers ridiculous: and in that p. 286. The Translater makes himself ridiculous, for his gross Ignorance. For speaking of one, who was Clericus Signetti, (as he calls it) that we might know what the Signettum was he adds,— Sigillum ita Regium privatum nuncupamus: so that if his Latin and Logic be true, the Signet and Privy-Seal are one and the same thing: which (I believe) that Excellent and Worthy Person, my Lord Privy-Seal, will not allow. Mr. Wood, (who was the compiler of those Antiquities) was himself too favourable to Papists; and has often complained to me, that at Christ-Church, somethings were put in, which neither were in his Original Copy, nor approved by him. The truth is; not only the Latin, but also the Matter of those Antiquities, being erroneous in several things, may prove scandalous, and give our Adversaries some occasion to censure not only the University, but the Church of England and our Reformation.  
Sure I am, that the University had no hand in composing or approving those Antiquities, and therefore the Errors which are in them, cannot (de jure) be imputed to the University, but must lie upon Christ-Church and the composer of them. I am Sir,  
Your faithful Servant, etc.   

Some Quotations out of B. Barlow's Manuscript-Answer to Mr. Hobbs Book of Heresy wherein is proved the Papists gross Hypocrisy, in the putting Heretics to Death.  
WHEN the Church of Rome delivers over some impious and degraded person to the secular Power, to be punished with Death (for to that end they 
(a) Ad hoc sit ista traditio ut puniatur morte. Ho●i●nsis apud Pano●m. ad Caput, n●●imus, 27. § 8. extra de v●rb. sig. & Aquinas 2. 2. Qu. 11 & A●●. 3. relinquit j●dicio saeculari exterminan●●m per mort●m. So Linwood, Lib. 5. de h●ereticis. cap. 1. Verbo paena in gl.  deliver him;) then the Bishop who delivers him to the Secular power Intercedes, Efficaciter & ex Cord (so says the Rubric) for the person in these words— 
(b) Pontificale Romanum Romae 1610. p. 456. vid. cap. novimus 27. extra de verborum sig. & Panorm. ibid. § 8. 9  Domine Judex, r●gamus vos, cum omni Affectu, quo possumus, ut amore Dei, Pietatis & misericordiae intuitu, & nostrorum interventu precaminum, miserimo huic nullam Mortis vel mutilationis periculum Inferatis. Now this is strange Hypocrisy, for the Secular Magistrate can neither alter, nor 
* The Secular Magistrate must believe not examine the Sentence of the Ecclesiastical Judg. Cook s reports part 5. de Jure Regio eccle. p. 7. Edit. London, 1612.  moderate the Sentence, but (if otherwise he will not) must be compelled to execute it. 
(c) Vid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad bullam Alexandri Papae 4. in bullario Cherubini tom. 1. p. 116. & Concil. Trid. sess. 25. C. 20. de Reformat. in Criminal Capit, Edit. Antwerp. 1633. p. 623. cogantur omnes Principes, etc.  Cogendi sunt magistratus & officiales quicunque ad exequendum sententias, etc. So that Luther justly said— 
(d) Articulo 33. inter artic. a Leone 10. damnatos.  sic verbis ludunt, in mortibus Innocentium. Nor does 
(e) Roffensis operum, p. 642.  Roffensus (though he endeavours it) give any just Answer or Apology for that their practice.  
And Panormitan instead of answering the objection, does indeed confirm it, for when he had told us, that the Prelate who delivers the condemned and degraded person to the Secular Judge should intercede 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 citys the opinion of Hostiensis (a great Canonist,) who expressly 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 authentic Constitutions of the Popes, which gives the Inquisitors power Cogendi quoscunque magistratus ad exequendum eorum sententias constit. 17. Alexandri. 4. in bullario cherubin. 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 Nicholas 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 delivered up to the Secular Power to that very 
(h) Ad quid Ergo tradit; seculari potestati, cum ipsa eccles. p●test cum punire paena minors. 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 infallibility 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. Abbess 2. Archiepiscopus Panormitanus & Cardinalis. Obiit. Anno 1443. Labbe descript. in Nicholas Tudeschio.  having deposed several Popes, as Heretics, 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 Heretics 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, etc.) 
(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 Pope's Supreme co-ercive 
(b) Joseph Stephanus Valentinus de Potestate coactiuâ quam Romanus Pontifex exercet in Saecularia, etc. Romae. 1586. p. 209.  power, even to disposing Kings and Emperors, and Dedicated to Sixtus 5. (or Size-cinque, as Q. Elizabeth called 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 Nou. 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 Judgement 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. etc. Observations. 8. pag. 181.  Pamphlet, and have endeavoured to show 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 Judged the Pope to be Antichrist: so Jewel, Raynolds, Whitaker, Usher, etc. 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 sit Antichristus) was constantly held Affirmatiué, as appears by their Questions Disputed in their public Acts and Commencements, which are extant in Print; I have heard it so held in Oxon many times, between the Years, 1624. and 1633. The first, who publicly denied the Pope to be Antichrist in Oxon, was my late Lord Archbishop, Doctor Sheldon. The Doctor of the Chair (Doctor Prideaux) wondering at it, said, Quid mi fili, negas Papam esse Antichristum? Doctor Sheldon answered, Etiam nego. Doctor Prideaux replied; Profectò multum tibi debet Pontifex Romanus, & nullus dubito, quin pileo Cardinalitio te donabit. After this Doctor Hammond 
(c) In his Paraphrase and Annotations, on 2. Thess. 2.3, 4. and in his Book against Doctor Blondellus.  denied the Pope and affirmed Simon Magus to be Antichrist.  
But which is much more, the Church of England has (in her 
(d) See our Homilies, Printed Anno. 1633. pag. 38. of the first part of those Homilies, and the Homily against the peril of Idolatry and Superstition: in the 2. part of these Homilies ' pag. 11, 12. etc.  Homilies, confirmed by Acts of Parliament, and Convocation, and Subscribed by all the Clergy, and all Graduates in the Universities) declared the Pope to be Antichrist: And then I desire to know, whether they be true and Obedient Sons of the Church of England, who publicly deny her Established Doctrine, which they had before publicly Subscribed.  
But if this be granted, that the Pope is Antichrist, than the Second Query will be whether the Church of Rome under him can be a true Church: And in what sense she can be called so? In answer to which Queries, I shall crave leave to say.  
1. It is certain, that the Seat of Antichrist shall not be amongst Pagans, Jews, or Turks, but in the 
(e) 2. Th●ss. 2.4.  Temple of God; that is (even as 
(f) In Templo Dei. id est, i● Ecclesia Dei, Ecclesias occupal●it. Hen. Helden, Doctor Sorb●nicus, in locum.  our Adversaries expound it) in the Church of God, the Christian Church, and amongst Christians: It is certain also, and confessed by our Adversaries (even the Jesuits 
(g) Jacobus Tirinus & Stephanus M●nochius in their Commentaries on Rev. 17.11, 16, 28. and on Rev. 18.4.  themselves) that Rome is the Mystical Babylon, which is the seat of Antichrist, though (as they are highly concerned) they would not have Rome, at present) to be the seat of Antichrist, 
(h) As Doctor Hammond (without any, and against all Reason) saith in his Annotations, on Rev. 18.2.  but say, that he is not yet come, or it must be Pagan Rome which is meant.  
2. But let Babylon, or the seat of Antichrist be what Christian Church they will, (and some Christian Church it mu●t be) it is evident from the Text, that God had a true Church even in Babylon; in the Kingdom, and under the Jurisdiction of Antichrist. For speaking of Babylon, or the seat and Kingdom of Antichrist, God commands, by his Angel, 
(i) Rev. 18.4.  come out of her my People, lest you be partakers of her sins, and Plagues. God had his People, his Elect (as the Jesuits 
(k) Electos suos ut è Babylone exeant admonet. Stephanus Menochius in locum.  expound it) a Church of his Servants, even in Babylon: For it had been impossible to call any of his People out of Babylon; if none of them had been in it: That People of God was in Babylon, in the Antichristian Church or Synagogue, but not of it; they dwelled in Babylon, and had external Communion with Antichrist and his followers, but did not Communicate with them in their Sins, and Antichristianism; for than they could not have been (what he who best knows, calls them) His People; so that we may truly say, that in the Kingdom of Antichrist, even in Babylon itself, there are two Churches. 1. One visible, consisting of Antichrist, and those who adhered to him; and this is not a true Church of Christ, but the Synagogue of Antichrist.  
2. Another invisible, consisting of the People of God, who kept themselves from Antichristianism: and this was a true Christian Church.  
So in the Church of the Jews, after Jeroboam had set up his Calves at Dan, and Bethel; and the Idolatrous Worship of those Calves was Established by Law, and generaly received by the People: There were two Churches in the ten Tribes. 1. One visible, consisting of all those who obeyed Jeroboam, and received, and practised that Idolatrous way of Worship he had set up. 2. The other Invisible, consisting of those 7000, who had not bowed 
(l) 1. Kings 19.18. Rom. 11.4.  their knees to Baal. These I call the invisible Church; because (though their persons as Men, were as visible as the Idolatrous Worshippers of Baal, yet) their pi●ty, and rejecting that Idolatry which was, by public Authority of their Kings, Authorised and set up; and (by the generality of the ten Tribes,) received and practised; this was so far from being visible, and known to others, that Elijah, the Prophet (who lived amongst them, and was a Prophet sent to the ten Tribes) knew it not; but thought that he 
(m) 1. Kings 19.10, 14. Rom. 11.3.  only remained a true Servant of God, free from that Idolatry, which Jeroboam had set up, and the ten Tribes did generally practise. Now this invisible Church of the Jews, consisting of those 7000 (it is numerus finitus pro infinito, a definite, for an indefinite number) who had not polluted themselves with Idolatry, were the true Church 
(n) Rom. 11.1, 2, 4, 5. Rom. 9.27.  of God in the ten Tribes, and owned by him as his People. But that which I called the Visible Church of the ten Tribes, who professed and practised the Worship of the Calves, set up by Jeroboam; this was no true but an Idolatrous Church. To bring this home to our present purpose  
3. That the Church of Rome (as it has for some Centuries last passed, and still does lie under that fatal 
(d) 2 Thes. 2.3. and 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. where we have two signal characters of that Apostasy, and Antichrist the Author of it. 1. Forbidding to Marry. 2. To abstain from Meats, which agree to that Roman Church evidently, and to no other Church in the World.  Apostasy spoken of by St. Paul) is very like the Church of the Ten Tribes, after Jeroboam had set up Idolatry, and caused them to sin. For as that Church of the Ten Tribes was Idolatrous; so the Church of Rome now, is guilty of gross Superstition, and stupid Idolatry. This is not my opinion only, all the Reformed Churches in Europe say the same; particularly the Church of England: as may and does evidently appear by her approved and authentic Writings, established by the Supreme Power of our Church and State, attested by the Subscription of all her Clergy, I mean our Homilies, 
(a) See our Homilies Printed 1633 par. 1. p. 36. in the 3d. part of the Sermon of good Works. And the Homily against the peril of Idolatry, in the second Tome of our Homilies, p. 11, 12, etc.  our 
(b) See the last Rubric at the end of the Communion, in our present Liturgy; and we have the same Rubric in the same place, in the second Liturgy of E. 6. Printed Anno 1552.  Liturgy, etc. to which we may add the Canons of the Convocation in the year 1640. which however not confirmed by Parliament, yet by them 'tis evident, that the Clergy met in that National Synod, declared Rome to be Idolatrous, and grossly 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 public 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, etc.) 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 Christ's Vicar, and Supreme 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 church of England; is summarily comprehended in their new T●ent Creed published by Pope Pius 4. and is in some Editions of the T●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 properly 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 'tis 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 affirmed, and he himself subscribed. 3. For those who talk of Material Idolatry, it is absolute nonsense. For although in actual sins of Commission, (as in Idolatry, Murder, Adultery, etc.) there be materiale peccati, the act itself, 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 Corpse (though it be Materialis pars, the material part) a Material Man; it being evident that a Dead Corpse 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) 'tis not 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 die 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 concerning Salvation of Papists, s e Mr. Chillingworth's answer to the Jesuit Father Knott, cap. 7, 8, 17, etc. p. 397, etc. and Dr. Featly's Defence of Sir Humphrey I●nds V●a recta, Lond. 1638. p. 148. in Alphabeto 3. I●●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 itself 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 truly 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 it.  
2. The other help is invincible ignorance, which will excuse 
(c) Vid. Suarez de Legibus lib. 5. cap. 12. & authores ab eo Ibidem citatos.  persons so ignorant, a paenâ & culpâ, and make many actions (which otherwise would be sinful) not so to seem. So in Spain and Italy, where Popish Tyranny prevails, and the poor people have no possibility to be better instructed; there many innocently believe; and do many times against positive laws, and Divine Revelations, which otherwise were impossible, if the Gospel were sufficiently revealed to them. This is the judgement of Protestant Divines concerning the possibility of Papists being saved, who live in the Communion of that Idolatrous and Antichristian Synagogue.  
My Lord I must humbly beg your pardon for this tedious and (I fear) impertinent Scribble. I shall give your Lordship no further trouble at this time. That God Almighty would be graciously pleased to bless your Lordship and all yours, is, and shall be the prayer of  
My Lord, Your Lordship's most obliged, thank-ful and faithful Servant. Thomas Lincoln.   

A Letter to another Person, about Worshipping the Host; being Formal Idolatry: and about Famous Protestant Divines, holding it Lawful to punish Heretics with Death.  
Sir,  
I Remember that in your last, you proposed two Questions to me, which now I have (which I had not before) time to Answer.  
The first was; in what place of his Works, Doctor Hammond, would have the Papists Worshipping the Host, with Latria (which worship they 
(a) Council Trident: Sess 13. De Eucharistia cap. 5. Cultus Latriae, qui vero Deo debetur, huic Sacramento exhibendus.  confess is due only to God; and yet they give it to their Consecrated Host) to be only Material, but not Formal Idolatry? I answer, that it is in his Tract of Idolatry, 364 Pag. 41.  
Whereas to call any thing material Idolatry, is formal nonsense: For forma dat nomen & esse. As nothing is, or can be a Man, which hath not the form of Man; so nothing can (with sense) he called Idolatry, which has not the form of Idolatry. It is true, that in all Sins of Commission, there is materiale and formale; so in Adultery, Murder, Idolatry; the positive Acts in those Sins, are the Materiale; and that habitude and relation to the Laws, of which they are Transgressions, is the formale, which denominates them such sins: for in a Man, there is Materiale, the Body; and Formale, the Soul. But no Man (who understands sense and Logic) would call a dead body (when the Soul is gone) a material Man; seeing it is not Man at all; but only materiale hominis, and not homo materialis.  
Doctor. Jer. Taylor (Bishop of Down) was of the same opinion, in his Liberty of Prophesying. pag. 258. And is earnest in freeing the Papists from Formal Idolatry. But the same Doctor Taylor, aftewards, in his Dissuasive from Popery, §. 12. pag. 148. Printed at Dublin, 1644. Fully Confutes both Doctor H●mmond and himself; and truly proves, that the Popish Adoration of their Host in the Eucharist, is properly Idololatrical. Sure I am, that our Church of England 
(b) Vide Canones Anno 1640. Can. 7.  did, and still does declare it to be detestable 
(c) See our present Liturgy, in the last Rubric, at the end of the Service for the Communion.  Idolatry.  
For your second Quaery; whether you have mistaken my meaning, in your Notes out of my Tract against Mr. Hobbs of Heresy? and whether I did mean that Zanchius, Bullenger and Beza, did approve the putting of Heretics to Death; and inflicting Capital punishments for Heresy? What I said in that Tract against Mr. Hobbs, I do not well remember, nor have I now that Tract by me. But it is certain, that they (and many more Protestant Divines) have approved that Doctrine, of punishing Heretics with Death.  
1. For Beza, he has writ largely and Learnedly, De Haereticis a Magistratu puniendis: Operum Tom. 1. pag. 85. Edit Genevae. 1582 Where he proves (against Billius, and Bas. Montfortius) that Heretics may be punished with death: And for this, he citys Calvin (Libro contra Servetum scripto, & in Commentariis in Titum,) Bullinger, Melanchton, Wolph. Capito, etc. The Senate of Geneva put Mich. Servetus (an Arrian) to Death; and consulted the Divines in Helvetia, whether they might Lawfully do it? And the Helvetian Divines answered, that (the Case and Circumstances considered) Servetus might be put Lawfully to Death, and so he was.  
And for Zanchius, he is expressly of the same Opinion: Operum Tom. 4. lib. 1. in tertium praeceptum. cap. 28. pag. 580, 581, 582. Edit. 1618. per Sam. Crispinum. Now you know, that the Church has no power to put Heretics (or any other Offenders) to Death; Excommunication is the greatest punishment, the Church can inflict; which (though many of our fanatics Contemn it, yet it) was in the Primitive and purer times, (what the Good Father calls it) Tremendum ultimi judicii praejudicium.  
I shall only add; That God Almighty would be graciously pleased to bless you, and all yours, is, and (God willing) shall be the Prayer of,  
Mar. 23. 1684. Your affectionate Friend, and Faithful Servant. T. L.   

A Letter about what Greek Fathers, and Councils were not Translated into Latin, before the time of the Reformation.  
Sir,  
I Received Yours, and this comes (with my Love and Service) to bring my thanks. You desire me, in two or three lines, to tell you, what Greek Fathers and Councils, were not Translated in Latin, nor commonly to be had in the Latin Church; before the time of Henry the 8th, and the Reformation.  
You know I am willing, (as for many Reasons I ought) to obey your commands so far as I am able. But in this particular, you do (praeter solitum) command impossibilities. For it is not a work of a Letter, or two or three lines to give such an account, as you desire; nay, I dare say, that no person, (though of far more reading and abilities (than I do, or can pretend to,) can do it in two or three years; nor indeed is it to be done, by any one Man in an Age.  
However (in general) give me leave to tell you, (what I think true and evident,) 1. That in our present case, two Intervals of time, are to be considered. 1. That before the 
(a) It was taken by Mahomet the 2. Anno Christi. 1453.  taking of Constantinople, by the Turks; before Printing 
(b) It was invented by John Gutenberg An. 1440. vide Hospinian: de Templis. pag. 448.  was invented; and before the Reformation begun by 
(c) Which was begun by Luther Anno. 1517.  Luther. 2. The time since the Reformation.  
For the time before Printing and Reformation, it is certain that the Roman Church, in the Primitive times, had, 1. The Scriptures Translated into their own Language, long before Hieromes time, who tells us, that in his time, there were almost Tota versiones quot Codices; that is, there were very many Latin versions of the Scriptures; that all might have, and (as they were concerned) read them: Though the Church of Rome now impiously prohibits the having or Reading the Scriptures in any vulgar Tongue?  
2. As they had the Scriptures, so they had some of the Greek Fathers Translated in Latin. For instance, they had Irenaeus Translated into Latin, (for 'tis certain he writ in Greek,) so as the Original Greek Copy is lost, and neither they nor we can find it. And 'tis certain, that they had many other, Greek Fathers Translated into Latin, as appears by their Canonists, Schoolmen, and other Latin Writers (who Cite chrysostom, Basil, Nazianzen, etc.) who understood no Greek, and therefore made use of their Latin Translations only. It is also certain, that they had (in their libraries) many Greek Fathers, which lay there Untranslated. But how many were Translated into Latin, and how many were not, I know no Man has, or indeed can tell.  
In the tenth Century, (which all learned Men, even Papists, call Saeculum indoctum, for the horrid Ignorance of that Age) and those five Centuries, which followed till Luther, Evangelical Truth, and Greek, were rare commodities at Rome: Latin was the Language of the Beast, in those six Centuries: Their Canonists and Schoolmen understood no Greek, (nor good Latin) as is well known to all, who know them. Nay, he who understood, and studied the Greek Tongue, was suspected to be an Heretic. And no wonder, seeing the Greek Tongue was condemned in their 
(d) Cap. Inter Solicitudines 1. Clem. 4 De Magistris.  Canon Law. For when Pope Clement the 5th, in the General Council at Vienna, Anno, 1312. had Decreed eight Professors of Tongues, to be Established in five Universities, (Rome, Paris, Oxford, Salamanca, and Bononia,) two in Hebrew, two in Chaldee, two in Arabic, and two in Greek; publicly to teach those Languages; in their Canon Law, (before cited) the Greek Tongue is left out, in all the Editions I have seen; 
(e) Corpus Juris Canonici cum Glossis, Paris 1519.  (Old and New) 
(f) Corpus Juris Canonici cum Glossis, Paris. 1612. & sine Glossis, Paris, Anno. 1618. & Lugduni. Anno. 1661.  both in the Rubric and Text itself. And the Author 
(g) Johan. Andrea's Boniensis, verbo, Hebraicae.  of the Glossa there, gives the Reason, why the Greek Tongue is left out of the Law, (though it was in the Canon of the Council of Vienna) Quia Graeci sunt Schismatici. The Greeks (as the Gloss Confesseth) were anciently obedient to the Pope, but now, (when Pope 
(a) Johannes Papa, 22. An. Pontificatus, 2. Annoque Dom. 1316. vid. Glossam ad Calcem Proaemii ad Clementinas, verbo, Pontificatus.  John Published the Clementines) they were Schismatics, and therefore the Greek Tongue was damned at Rome, where Ignorance was the Mother of their Antichristian Devotion. Hence that horrid Ignorance of the Greek Tongue, which prevailed in the Papacy, before the Reformation; even in their greatest Schoolmen and Canonists.  
To give you an Instance or two: They give us the Derivation of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and tell us; Istud vocabulum fit ex duobus vocabulis, ab Allo, quod est alienum, & goro, sensus. Stupid Ignorance, and nonsense: There is no such word as Goro, to signify sense, or any thing, save that they wanted sense themselves. And an Old Schoolman (my namesake Thomas de Argentina) gives us the Derivation of Latria, thus, Istud vocabulum fit ex duobus vocabulis, a lafoy, quod est laus, & Tria, quod est Trinitas, quia Latria est laus Trinitatis. So great was their Ignorance of Greek; sed transeat cum caeteris erroribus.  
3. As they had Scripture and Fathers Translated into Latin, so they had Councils too. Dionysius Exiguus, Abbas Romanus, in the sixth Century, Translated the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversae, (which next the Bible, is the most Authentic Book the Church ever had) into Latin, and most impiously 
(b) He leaves out the Catalogue of the Canonical Books of Scripture, in the last Canon of the Council of Laodicea, pag. 86. Edit. Paris, 1628. 2. He leaves out four Canons of the first Council of Constantinople; 3. All the Canons of the Council of Ephesus. 4. And the 28. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon. 5. He corrupts the Canons of the Council of Sardica, and other Canons etc. Besides, he adds many things to his Codex, which were never received into the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversalis. For Instance, The Canons of the Council of Sardica, in all 21. The African Canons also, in number: 138. And the Canons of the Apostles, 50. None of which belongs to that Authentic Code which he pretends to Publish and Translate. All which appears by the Ancient Greek Copies of that Authentic Code: Especially by that Codex Canenum Ecclesiae Vniversae, Published by Christ. Justellus, in Greek and Latin, with his Learned Notes, at Paris, Anno 1610.  corrupted it; leaving out what made against the Popes, and the Church of Rome's pretended greatness.  
But (to name not more particulars) it is certain,  
1. That before the Reformation, the Roman Church had many of the Greek Fathers, and Councils, and corrupt Translations of them; as is evident by Ancient Mscr. of both, yet extant in Bodleys, and other Libraries. The Greek Copies of those Fathers and Councils, being kept in Libraries, 
(c) That the Latin Church had Copies of the Greek Fathers and Councils, both in Latin and Greek, appears because that since the Reformation, we have (out of those Mscr. Copies which lay in Libraries) most of those Greek Fathers, and Councils Published in Print.  very few consulting or understanding them, and their corrupt Translations of them only in common use, and cited by their writers.  
By the gross Ignorance and neglect of the Latin Church, (which should have been a more careful keeper of Ecclesiastical Records) many of the Ancient Greek Fathers have been lost; as appears by Photius his Bibliotheca, where he gives us an account of many Greek Fathers and Writers, which are not now any where Ext●●t.  
That which expelled that more than Egyptian darkness, and Ignorance of the Church of Rome, under which it had laid above six hundred Years, and thereby introduced her prodigious Errors and Idolatries, (which had been impossible for her to have done, had our Western World been awake, and not benighted with fatal and gross Ignorance) I say that means which expelled this darkness (the good providence of God so ordering it) was,  
1. The Invention of Printing; whereby good Authors (Greek and Latin) were more easily, and with less charge got.  
2. The taking of Constantinople by the Turks, which occasioned many Learned Men of the Greek Church, to retire into the West and the Roman-Church, who brought considerable Greek Manuscripts with them; and (to name no more) Theodorus Gaza (who was the most Learned of them) writ a Greek Grammar, to help those who desired it, to learn their Language; by which means many begun to Love and Learn the Greek Tongue.  
3. But that which most encouraged and necessitated the study of Languages, and especially the Hebrew and Greek, was Luther and the Reformation by him begun, Anno, 1517. Luther (which was rare in those times, in a Monk) understood Hebrew and Greek; and having many disputes with Cardinal Cajetan, (who was then Legate in Germany) the Cardinal urging Scripture against him, according to their Vulgar Latin Translation; Luther told him, that Translation was false, and dissonant from the Original: This puzzled the Cardinal, (though a great Schoolman) who thereupon set himself to study both Greek and Hebrew, which with great diligence he did, that he might be better able to Answer and Confute Luther and his followers; many of which were excellent Grecians, such were Melanchton, and many others. And hence it was, that the Pope and his Party, seeing the necessity of Languages (especially Hebrew, and Greek) for the Defence of their Religion (or Superstition rather) against the Protestants: Pope Paul the fifth, Renews the Decree of Clement the fifth, and the Council of Vienna, (before mentioned) and though that Decree had been neglected, and the Greek Tongue damned in their Canon Law; yet he earnestly injoins the profession of it (and of the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Arabic) in all their 
(a) Vide Constitutionem 67. Pauli, 5. in ●●llario Romano, Editionis, Rome, 1638. pag. 185, 186.  Universities, Monasteries, and Schools, to this end, that they might be better able to Confute the Heretics.  
I am Sir, Your affectionate friend and Servant. Tho. Lincoln.   

A Letter concerning the Kings being empowered to make a Layman his Vicar-General.  
Sir,  
THAT my Lord D. of Ormonds' Commission (which you say, you have seen) has no particular mention of the King's Ecclesiastical Power deputed, I wonder not. The Commission which makes him Viceroy, Deputy, or Lieutenant, to the King, does (ipso facto) make him his Vicar-General, to execute both powers (Ecclesiastical and Civil;) and (by that Commission) he does so.  
Does not the Lieutenant there (de jure ordinario, and as Lieutenants call Synods, collate Bishoprics; and other Ecclesiastical Dignities and Preferments? does he not hear and determine Ecclesiastical Causes, by himself, or some commissioned by him? does he not punish Ecclesiastical persons when they are criminal? Do not your Articles of Religion established in a National 
(a) Articles of Religion in the National Synod or Convocation at Dubl●n, 1615. § 57, 58. etc.  Synod of Ireland, give our Kings the same Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Causes there, as he has here? And do not our Kings here execute their Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, partly in Person (in giving Archbishoprics, Bishoprics, calling Synods, etc.) partly by Commission; so the Chancellors of England, by their Commission, have power to give some Ecclesiastical Dignities and Live, to visit Windsor, (I mean the Collegiate Church there) and all his royal Chapels and Churches of his Foundation (if he have not otherwise appointed other visitors, etc.) In short, I do believe, that (in England) never any but Cromwell had such a large Commission, and full power to Visit all persons, in all Ecclesiastical Causes, yet I believe it most evident, that he may (when he shall think it convenient) give such a Commission.  
I am Sir, Your affectionate Friend and Servant. T. L.   

A Letter concerning the allowance and respect that the Sentences of Protestant Bishops may expect from Popish ones; writ by way of answer to a friend of Mr. Collington's who acquainted the Bishop that the Court of Arches here, was of opinion that the Sentence of the Archbishop of Turin could not here be questioned, by reason of the practice of Popish and Protestant Bishops allowing each others Sentences.  
Sir,  
FOR the contempt they of Rome have of our Bishops, and all their Sentences and Judicial Acts, (especially in foro exteriori & contentioso) it is notoriously known, that they have no value at all of our Bishops, and pronounce all their sentences and judicial Acts null, and every way invalid. For,  
1. They generally deny our Bishops and Ministers to be true Bishops or Priests, but admit them to be Laymen only. A Sorbon 
(a) Anth Champney. P. and D. of the Sorbonne Dovay. 1616.  Dr. In a Treatise about the Vocation of Bishops and Ministers, endeavours to prove, against Du Plessin, Dr. Field, and Mr. Mason; that Protestant Bishops (particularly those of England) are not true Bishops, nor have any lawful Calling. Another (and he a Popish Bishop) speaking of our English Bishops and Pastors, says 
(b) R. Smith Bp. of Chalcedon in praefat. ad Collationem Doctrinae Catholicorum ac Protestant. Paris. 1622.  Eos quos nunc pro Pastoribus habent, NIHIL EORVM OBTINERE, quae ad ESSENTIAM hujus muneris requiruntur. Another thus, 
(c) Rich. B●istow Motivo. 21.  Qualis est illa Ecclesia, cujus Ministri NIHIL ALIVD sunt quam MERE LAICI, NON MISSI, NON VOCATI, NON CONSECRATI? Our Countryman Card. Alan, and the Rhemish Annotators say, 
(d) Annotatores Rhemenses in Rom. 10.15.  All our Clergymen from the highest to the lowest, are false Prophets, running and usurping, being NEVER LAWFULLY CALLED. And Dr. Kellison, speaking of our Bishops and Ministers, 
(e) Kellison in Repl. contra D. Sutlisse, p. 31.  NEC ORDINES, nec JURISDICTIONEM habent.  
And Bellarmine 
(f) Bellarmin. De Ecclesiâ militant. l. 4. c. 8.  Nostri temporis Haeretici, nec ordinationem, nec successionem habent, ideo longè inverecundiùs quam ulli unquam Haeretici, nomen & munus Episcopi usurpant. And some Popish Priests in their Petition to King James, expressly tell the King, 
(g) Supplicat. ad Jacobum Regem. 1604.  NULLI ministrorum vestrorum ad Catholicam fraternitatem accedentes, habentur alii quam MERE LAICI.  
Lastly, (Not to trouble you or myself with more Quotations) Turrian tells us; that Donatists and Luciferian Heretics have some kind of Bishops and Priests, 
(h) Turrian. de Jure Ordinand. lib. 1. cap. 7.  Protestants vero, NULLAM PENITUS formam Ecclesiae habent, quia NULLOS PENITUS Ecclesiae & Verbi MINISTROS habent, sed MEROS LAICOS.  
This is their opinion of our Bishops and Clergy; that they have no just Call, or Ordination, and consequently no Jurisdiction; and than it necessarily follows, (if this were true) that all their Sentences and Judicial Acts are invalid and absolute nullities.  
2. They say, that all Protestants (especially the Bishops and Clergy) are Heretics and Schismatics, extra Ecclesiam; and neither have, nor can have any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: so that whatever cause be brought before them in their Consistories, it is coram non Judice, and so whatever they do is a nullity. That Heretics and Schismatics (and such they declare all Protestants to be) forfeit all their Ecclesiastical Authority and Jurisdiction, their own 
(i) Gratian. Can. 4. Audivimus. Can. vit Caelestinus. 35. Can. Apertè. 36. Can. Miramur 37. Caus. 24. Quaest. 1. vid. Card. de Turrecremata, ad dictos Canon's.  Canons expressly say. And besides those, Gratian speaks home to this point, in another 
(k) Gratian. Can. Didicimus 31. Caus. 24. Quaest 1.  Canon. The Lemma or Title to the Canon, is this— Sacri Officii potestate PENITVS CARENT HAERETICI, etc. And the words of the Canon (if that be possible) are more express— Dicimus OMNES OMNINO HAERETICOS, NIL habere potestatis & Juris. And Card. Turrecremata explains the Canon, thus— 
(l) Card. de Turrecremata ad Can. Didicimus 31. Caus. 24. Quaest. 1. § 1.  Potestas vel est Sacramentalis, (seu Ordinis) vel Jurisdictionis. The first, being indelible and permanent, may be in Heretics▪ Quoad esse, sed non quoad usum; and yet, if they do use it, what they do will be valid. But for the Potestas Jurisdictionis, that is utterly lost by Heretics; Their Heresy deprives them of all their Ecclesiastical Authority and Jurisdiction; & si quid fecerint, NIL ACTUM ERIT. Whatever they do is null. This their Canonists and Casuists constantly say; and that so far, that if the Pope be an Heretic, (as sure enough he is) Jure suo excidit, he ceases to be Pope. The same Cardinal does not only say this, but seriously endeavour to 
(m) Idem Ibidem § 2.  prove it. And as great a Cardinal and Canonist as he, tells us— 
(n) Card. Tuschus, Conclus. practicarum, Tom. 4. Tit. H. Concl. 102. § 18.  Sicut Clericus PRIVATUR IPSO JURE, beneficio & dignitate, SI SIT HAERETICUS; Ita PAPA privatur Papatu, Reges regno, Imperator Imperio; quia in istis fidei causis nulla ese distinctio. This is their doctrine at Rome, (erroneous and impious;) yet, if they think Heresy of such pernicious nature, that it deprives even their Pope of all his Papal Jurisdiction; it is a less wonder, if they think it deprives heretical Bishops (such as they think all Protestant Bishops to be) of all their Episcopal Jurisdiction.  
3. All Protestants (especially the Bishops) being Heretics (in the Popish account) they are ipso facto and by their law, excommunicate; as is evident by their 
(o) Vid. Cap. ad abolendum. 9 extra. de Haereticis. & cap. excommunicamus. 13. Ibid. & caput Noverit. 49. extra. De scent. excommunicate. etc.  Canons, and their Bulla 
(p) In Bullario Cherubini, Romae, 1638. Tom. 4. Bullae Vrbani. 8. 62. p. 76.  Caenae; wherein the Pope once every year, (on Maundy Thursday) excommunicates and Anathematizes all Heretics, (Lutherans 
(q) Omnes Lutheranos, Zuinglianos, Calvinistas, etc. Ibid. § 1.  and Calvinists particularly and by name expressly:) Now such excommunication takes effect immediately, without expecting the Judge's Sentence. Iste talis (says 
(r) Stephan. de Avila, de Censuris Ecclesiast. part. 1. Dub. 7. p. 9, etc.  a great Canonist) statim incurret censuram, nullâ expectatâ judicis Sententiâ, est communis Doctorum; & est Textus in Cap. Pastoralis. § Verum. De Appellat. ubi dicitur, quod excommunicatio secum trahit executionem. And a greater than he, expressly says the same thing— 
(s) Card. To●et. Instruct. Sacerd. lib. 1. cap. 11. § 12. p. 49. Vid. Caj●tani Summulam verbo excommunicatio. Covarrutium part 1. Relect. 1. Alma Mater. § 7. De Excommunica. & ejus effectu, operum Tom. 1. p. 346. etc. Vincent. Fill lincium Mo●al 'em Quaest. Tractat. 22. cap. 7. De Paenis Haereti●o●um, etc.  excommunicatio secum trahit executionem, & INHABILITAT, quoad omnes ejus parts, illum qui in eam incidit, absque alia declaratoriâ, etc. But there needs no more, for 'tis certain; that all contumacious Heretics (as to them all our Bishops are) being actually excommunicate, (as all such Heretics solemnly are once a year) are ipso facto deprived of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: and therefore they of Rome do not only say, but (by their received Law and Canons) must say, that our Bishops have no Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, and so all their Judgements and Judicial Sentences null and invalid.  
Lastly, It is to me a wonder, that any knowing person should think that the King and Bishops of England, should have no power to Question the Sentence passed in the Archbishop of Turins Consistory; when they do (and aught to do so) question, and justly condemn the Sentence of the Pope (in many things concerning Matrimony) passed in their General Council of Trent. And have not the King and Bishop's power to do a native and born subject of England right, because a Popish Bishop by an injust Sentence has done him wrong? Dare any Bishop in England say, that the Sentence of the Archbishop of Turin (unexamined, or the just reason of it not appearing) is a just ground to quite Mr. Cottington's (or any Man's) Conscience, so that he may safely and without Sin, cohabit with Gallina (her former Husband being yet alive;) sure I am none should, or justly can, and therefore (I hope) none will say so.  
I am Your affectionate Friend and Servant. T. L. August 14. 1677.   

The Bishop being writ to, to send an account out of the Casuistical directories for Confessors, about the sins proper for Kings to be interrogated about in Confession; returned this answer.  
Sir,  

Edit. Lugduni. An. 1646.  ANTONIUS Escobar Theologiae moralis Tractat. 1. Examine 12. cap. 1. pag. 147. put this Question; Quinam ad praeceptum divinum Confessionis obligantur? And then his Answer is this— Fideles omnes adulti qui accepto baptismo lethaliter deliquerunt.  
And then Tractatu 2. Examine. 3. cap. 3. p. 261. He puts this Question.  

De Papa.  Num Pontificis Summi delicta memorabimus? which he answers thus,  
Profecto suprema ecclesiae potestas haud est fragilitatis humanae incusanda; quare nulla Papae exprimam crimina: sanctissimus enim Ecclesiae vertex, Sanctissimis operibus operam dabit. Si autem aliquid humanitati indulserit, sapientissimus ille muneris tantionera non ignorabit.  
Idem Ibidem p. 261. 
De Regibus.  De Regum vitiis haec habet.  
Regum igitur ac Superiorum Principum accusationem praetendo.  
And then he brings in a King confessing (amongst other) these sins— ita propria bona dissipavi, ut aliena aggressus fuerim usurpare: subditos nimium molestis tributis aggravando, debita non solvendo: ingentem vim auri & argenti, subditorum injuriâ, accumulavi. Leges poenales non in delictorum repressionem, sed in subditorum expilationem indixi. Morti deputavi, aut gravi supplicio, vivum inauditum, non intercedente gravissimâ causâ: leges Ecclesiasticae immunitati repugnantes praescripsi. Advertenter judices indoctos creavi; vel cognitâ postmodum eorum insufficientiâ non illico amovi.  
Johan Azorius, (a Jesuit too) Institutionum Moralium, part. 2. lib. 11. cap. 7. p. 1105, 1108. Edit. Lugduni, 1616. Has a long Catalogue of the Sins of Kings; (not of such sins as are common to Kings and private men, but such as are peculiar to Kings, for so he says;) and (amongst others) he reckons those;  
Detestabliis est in Regibus injustitia; Regum enim est, suum cuiqu; tribuere. Peccant Reges si tributa iniquae subditis imponant, vel antiqua augeant, sine reipublicae necessitate-  
I am, Sir, Yours T. L.   

A Letter concerning historical passages in the Papacy; and of the Question, whether the Turk or Pope be the greater Antichrist?  
Sir,  
Whether Pope Innocent the VIII. had such a pension, as 40 or 60000 Crowns, from the Turk, I know not; though I do believe, had the Turk offered it, his holiness would scarce have refused it. For both Innocent the VIII. who died, Anno 1491. and Alexander the VI who succeeded him, were prodigiously impious, and beyond all measure covetous.  
Innocent the VIII. had no less than 26 Sons and Daughters, yet no Wife; for of him it was 
(a) See Cyprian Valera of the Lives of the Popes; writ in Spanish, and translated into English by John Golburne, and Printed at London 1600. p. 130.  said by the Poet.  
Octo recens pueros genuit, totidemque puellas;  
Hunc merito poterit dicere Roma patrem.  
Spurcities, gula, avaritia atque ignavia deses,  
Hoc octave jacent, quo tegeris, tumulo.  
In his time, Bajazet the Turkish Emperor had a Brother (Zizimus, or as, some call him, Geme) who rebelled against him, and sent to Pope 
(b) Cyprian Valera, Ibid. p. 131. out of Friar John de Pineda, lib. 26. cap. 33.  Innocent to secure that brother, (who was retired to Rhodes, and was afterwards brought to the Pope.) Bajazet sent a present to the Pope, to wit, the Title of our blessed Saviour's Cross, in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. This the Turk sent to the Pope, that he might detain his Brother Zizimus, (or Geme) that so he might not be at liberty, to make War against him. Pope Innocent being dead, the Turks Brother Geme, was Prisoner to his Successor Alexander VI to whom the Turk paid a pension of 40000 ducats Annually, 
(c) Cyprian Valera (or De Valera) Ibid p. 136.  for keeping his Brother Prisoner. But Charles the VIII. King of France managing War against Pope Alexd, (who was not able to resist that King) the Pope was constrained to conclude a peace; and one condition was, that he should set the Turks Brother at Liberty. This exceedingly troubled the Pope; who if he set the Turks Brother at Liberty, lost his pension of 40000 Dackats. At last, the Turk gave the Pope Alexander, 200000 ducats to take away his Brother, 
(c) Cyprian Valera Ibid. and he citys there Guicciardin and Jovius.  and accordingly, the Pope caused him to be 
(d) Guicciardin in the 3. Book of his History had this story of Pope Alexander's abominable incest with Lucretia; but it was left out, both in Italian and Latin Editions; but the words were published (with other passages left out of his History) Lond. 1595. and since at Amsterdam, 1663.  Poisoned, and so he died. This is that Pope Alexander, who could, and (notwithstanding his Holiness and Infallibility) did commit such abominable Adulteries and Incest with his own 
(d) Guicciardin in the 3. Book of his History had this story of Pope Alexander's abominable incest with Lucretia; but it was left out, both in Italian and Latin Editions; but the words were published (with other passages left out of his History) Lond. 1595. and since at Amsterdam, 1663.  Daughter Lucretia, as has not usually been heard of amongst Pagans; which gave occasion to Johannes Pontanus, to make this Epitaph for the said Lucretia.  Hoc jacet in tumulo Lucretia nomine, sed re Thais, Alexandri filia, sponsa, Narus. 
But enough, (if not too much) of this. For even your best Popish Writers, (who are more willing to conceal, than to publish their Pope's impieties) confess this Alexander the sixth, to have been a Monstrous villain: that he had the Turkish Emperor's Brother Zizimus, at Rome, that he delivered him up to Charles the French King, and that he died a little while after. And Sabellicus 
(e) Vide Onuphrum Pa●●inium, Papizium Massonum, etc. in Vita Alexandri. 6. Ant. C●ecium Sabellicum Operum Tom. 2. Enneadis. 10. lib. 9 p. 778. D. 781. B.  says, that Bajazet promised the Pope Magnam auri vim, si fratrem veneno tolleret, p. 778. And it is certain, he died a little after; and then he adds, that it was believed, that he was poisoned, the Pope knowing it— Fuerunt qui crederent eum Veneno sublatum, fuisseque Alexandrum Pontificem, ejus consilii non ignarum, p. 782.  
Again you say; It seems, that the Hungarians had rather be under the Turk, than under the Pope and Emperor: so should I too, if I might have my choice, and were put to it. If I had liberty and power to avoid it, I would be under neither, It being a great unhappiness to be under either. For (as the Proverb is) neither Barrel is better (nor good) Herring. But if my condition be so miserable, that I must be under one of them, than (consonant to right Reason and Religion) pars tutior est eligenda; I will choose that side, in which I shall undergo less misery and mischief, that is, I will be under the Turk rather than the Pope.  
For under the Turk I may (as the Greek Church does) enjoy my Religion, and if I do not rebel, but pay Taxes, I may enjoy the rest of my Estate. But under the Pope I shall not have so good Quarter and Conditions. I must either turn Papist, (with evident danger of Eternal Damnation) or I lose all. For the Popish Apothegme, their declared Judicial Sentence is peremptory, short and severe— Turn or Burn. If with reasons, (grounded on Nature or Scripture) they cannot, (as I am sure they cannot) convince me of the truth of their Roman-Catholick Religion, than they have (where they have power) Fire and Faggot to consume me. So that under the Pope, If I keep my Religion, than life and livelihood, and whatever I have in this World is absolutely lost: and if I impiously desert my Religion, I shall have little reason to hope for any thing but Hell, (Purgatory will not do it) in the World to come.  
1. The next Query you mention, is whether the Turk or Pope be the worse Antichrist; and you say, that honest John Fox disputes the Case pro and con, and leaves the determination of it, till Elias come.  
But I fear you are mistaken; for John Fox did believe the Pope to be Antichrist: and so did (and do) all the Reformed Churches, particularly the Church of England: as evidently appears by our Homilies; (which all our Divines do still Subscribe) and though Dr. Hammond, has a new and wild opinion, that Simon Magus was Antichrist; yet in that he contradicts the Doctrine of our Church, which he had Subscribed; and not only so, but he contradicts express Scripture, and the Sense of Christendom for 1600. Years: He being the first who ever held that Apocryphal Opinion, and (may be) he will be the last; unless some out of mere kindness to his Person (for his opinion has neither proof nor probability) become his Proselytes.  
2. If you would know my opinion, (though it signify little) whether the Pope or Turk be the greater Antichrist? 1. 'Tis granted, that they are both Anti-christs. For even in St. John's time there 
(a) 1. John, 2.18.  were, and ever since there have been many Antichrists (impious Heretics he means, and deserters 
(b) Ibidiem verse 19  of the truth of the Gospel;) but amongst those many Antichrists, there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one great Antichrist, who was to come, as St. John there says; and of all the rest, the Turk and Pope have the fairest Pleas to be that Antichrist, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But the Pope is certainly to be preferred, and he shall have my vote for that great place of being the great Antichrist: because he has some proprieties and Characteristical marks of that Beast, which the Turk neither has, nor can pretend too.  
I shall only name one or two. 1. The Seat of Antichrist, was to be the 
(c) Rev. 17.18.  great City which reigned over the Kings of the Earth. Which unquestionably is Rome, where the Pope has, and does sit. And even the Jesuits confess this, as also other Popish writers. Now the Turks Seat neither is, nor ever was at Rome.  
2. Another mark of the great Antichrist is; That he exalts 
(d) 2 Thess. 2.3, 4.  himself above all that is called God, etc. above all Kings and Emperors, who in Scripture are called Gods. This the Pope does who takes upon him (and his own Canonists and Council say, he may do it) to depose Kings, and give away Kingdoms: A most prodigious instance of this Papal pride, we have in Pope Alexander the VI (whom you have mentioned) who gave 
(e) Vide Constitut. 2. Alexandrio 6. in Bullario Romano Tom. 1. pag. 347. Editionis Romae. 1638.  to Ferdinand King of Arragon, and his Heirs for ever, all the West Indies; (that is, almost half the known World) at one clap, as appears by his Bull, Published at Rome, before mentioned in the Margin. But the Turk, has never claimed such an Universal Monarchy over the whole World; and therefore has not so good a Plea as the Pope has to be Antichrist.  
3. It is a mark of Antichrist, or the Whore of Babylon, (as St. John calls her) that she 
(a) Rev. 17.6.  was drunk with the Blood of the Saints. Which agrees not to the Turk, who suffers Christians to live, (if they do not Rebel, and pay their Taxes) and does not take away their lives, because they are not of his Religion. But the Pope (where ever he has power) suffers none to live, who will not submit to him, and embrace his Romish and Idolatrous way of Worship. The many thousands (nay many hundred thousands) who barely on this account, have in these last 600. Years, been Murdered by the Pope and his party, (either by open War, Inquisitions, or otherways) are signal evidences of this truth; and amongst others, the French Massacre, Anno. 1572. and our late Irish Massacre, are sad and signal Instances.  
I am, Sir, Your affectionate Friend, and Servant. T. L. Bugden Sept. 9 1682.   

The Bishop's thoughts being desired about two things, namely, 1. when the Famous Prophetical passage in Hooker might have its Accomplishment; and 2. about the Modus of the deposing of a King in Poland, the Circumstances of which it was probable the Bishop was well informed in, by his frequent Conversation with some Polonian Noble Men, and Students at Oxford; he returned his Answer, to the two Inquiries.  
THE passage enquired about in Hooker was as followeth; viz.  
By these or the like suggestions, received with all joy, and with all sedulity practised in Certain parts of the Christian World: They have brought to pass, that as David doth say of Man; so it is in hazard to be verified concerning the whole Religion and Service of God. The time thereof may peradventure fall out to be Threescore and ten Years, or if strength do serve, unto Fourscore. What follows, is like to be small joy to them whatsoever they be that behold it. Thus have the best things been overthrown; not so much by puissance and might of Adversaries, as through defect of Council in them that should have upheld and defended the same.  
The Answer of the Bishop was as followeth, viz.   

SIR,  
I Received yours, and though I have hardly time to (return my thanks and) tell you so; yet (in obedience to your commands) I shall crave leave to tell you.  
1. That the passage you name in Mr. Hooker, occurs in his fifth Book, and in the end of the 79. Paragraph, pag. 432. of the 
(a) The year when it was Printed, is not mentioned, only that it was Printed at London.  Old Edition. And in the 
(b) Anno. 1062.  last Edition of hooker's Policy, by Doctor Gauden Bishop of Exeter; the place occurs in the same Book and Paragraph, pag. 329. 330. (Note, that Mr. Hooker had a Wife, and (if any be bad) one of the worst in England, and yet Bishop Gauden in his 
(c) Pag. 12. ●incâ ultimâ.  Life before hooker's Policy, tells us, that Mr. Hooker was never Married.)  
Now for Mr. hooker's Prophetical passage, the time of it is not yet come: For though we talked much of it, and said it was fulfilled, when the Long Parliament pulled down the Church, and sold Church-lands (for of such Sacrilege Hooker speaks) yet it may be fulfilled hereafter, and hooker's Prediction true.  
For Hooker did first, Print his first Book in the 
(d) See hooker's Life by Isaac Walton pag. 117.  Year, 1597. (The first four of his Policy, being before Printed 
(e) Ibid. pag, 116.  Anno 1594.) Now if you add to that Number 80. (which is the utmost time Hooker mentions) than the time of the fulfilling his prediction, must be in the 
(f) Ann. 1597. Add— 80. In all— 1677.  Year, 1677. and so it is possible you and I, may live to see the Issue of it. And so much for the Point of Prophecies; concerning which, (and our Country Men) our old Historian, Gul. Neubrigensis (so they Print his Name, but it should be Neuburgensis) tells us— Gens Anglorum Prophetiis semper dedita.  
For your other Query about Poland; The Historian I recommended to you (because he was commended to me, by My Lord Goreski, and several other Polish Gentlemen) was Mart. Cromerus, who has other Works, but those they commend, as giving the best account of the State of Poland, are  
1. His Chronicon de Origine, & rebus gestis Poloniae. Basil. 1582.  
2. His Polonia, seu de situ, populis, moribus. etc. Poloniae. Basil. 2582.  
Now the Story I told you, is (what those Polonian Noble Persons tell me, (for I have not Read much in Cromerus) That Poland is an Elective Kingdom. 2. That there are pacta conventa, and Fundamental Capitulations, between him and the People; which contain Jura Regni & Populi, the power of the King, and the Privileges and rights of the People. 3. The Elected King at his Inauguration, Swears to observe Faithfully those pacta conventa. 4. Amongst those Capitulations, to which he Swears, this is one, That if he do not (according to his Oath) keep those Capitulations, than the Archiepscopus Guintisnensis (Primate of Poland) is privately to admonish him; then (if he do not mend) he is to admonish him more publicly before the great Lords. And if he continue incorrigible, the Archbishop may send out an Edict to prohibit the Nation to give him Obedience, or any part of his Revenue; in short, to depose him.  
I am, Your Affectionate Friend, and Servant. Thom. Lincoln. Coll. Oxon. Aug. 23. 1675.   

The Bishop being writ to, on occasion of a Friends desiring to know whether the Famous saying of Res nolunt malè Administrari (of which a Gentleman in London, pretends himself to be the Author) had not its Origine from Aristotle's metaphysics; to which Venerable Bede, in his Philosophical Axioms refers in his citing the saying; his Lordship returned the following Answer.  
Sir,  
FOR that Axiom of Bede, (which you mention) Entia nolunt malè disponi. I have Bedes works, and I find, amongst his Axiomata Philosophica, this Axiom, in these words— Nolunt entia malè gubernari. 
(b) Beda inter Axiomata Philosophica Tom. Operum 2. pag. 151. litera N.   
But for the second Book of Aristotle's Metaphysics, to which (it seems) your Book refers, there is no such Axiom there: Nor any thing that may give any ground for it, unless they may relate to one passage in that second Book, where speaking of the difficulty to understand some things, he says— 
(c) Aristotelis Metaph. lib. 2. cap. 1.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That the cause of that difficulty is not in the things themselves, but in us: We, through the weakness of our understandings may mistake, and several Men may have several Opinions of the same things, but the nature of the things, is fixed and the same, though Men (by mistake) may think otherwise.  
Whereas you say, that there is a Gentleman in your great Town, who pretends to be Author of that Axiom; I do confess, you have in your Town many Errors more impious, but hardly more ridiculous. For venerable Bede died in the Year, 735. that is, 949. since; and Bede, (as by his Works is evident) has that Axiom, in terminis; so unless that Gentleman be Older than Bede, (which I believe he is not) he cannot be Author of that Axiom.  
I shall say no more, save (that you may, and I hope will believe) that I am,  
July 29. 1684. Your Faithful Friend, and Servant, T. L.   

A Letter of the Bishop, about Natural Allegiance; and of Kingly Power, being from God; and Confuting my Lord Shaftsbury's Speech, in the House of Lords, for the contrary, etc.  
Sir,  
IN your Letter, you desire some things of me, which (jure tuo) you may command; 1. That I would name to you, some of our Divines, who have (ex professo) writ of natural Allegiance.  
To this I would say, 1. That what our Lawyers say, I doubt not but you well know; yet let me commend to your perusal (if you have not met with it before) Spelmans Glossary, who was neither professed Lawyer nor Divine, yet a very learned Antiquary, and has said some things of Allegiance, which are considerable, in his last Edition, Printed Anno. 1664. under the word Fidelitas: For though he have the word Allegiancia, in his Glossary, yet he has nothing upon it there.  
2. For Divines, it belongs to them to speak of Kings, and the Allegiance due to them, only so far as they have Scripture for their Rule. Now, which of our Divines have writ of the Natural Allegiance due to Kings, I do not (at present) remember, nor (in the extraordinary trouble and business, I now am) have I time to inquire.  
Sure I am; 1. That no Commonwealth, or any such popular Government, is ever heard of, or once named in Scriptures. Though the Author of Oceana, (I think Harrington was his name) and his party say; That God by Moses, Established his People in a Commonwealth.  
But this they say in contradiction; 1. To the Learnedest Jews (Josephus, Philo, etc.) who say, it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Government, wherein God himself was King; a Theocratia, or a Divine Monarchy: Wherein God himself was King, not only in a general way, as he is King of all the World; but to the Jews particularly; as much and as particularly, as the Kings of England, or Spain, are to their Kingdoms.  
For, 1. God 
(a) 1. Sam. 8.7.  himself says, he was their King; 2. And Samuel 
(b) 2. Sam. 10.19. and 12.12.  tells them so too: 3. God was a particular Lawgiver to the Jews, not so to any other Nation, he personally gave them all their Laws. 4. He did personally appoint his Viceroys, and Deputies, (Moses, Josua, etc.) 5. God did receive all their appeals, and personally answered them, by Urim, etc.  
Again, Divines may evidently conclude out of Scripture: That Kings and their Royal Power is, 1. A Deo & jure divino. 2. Non a Populo (no not in Elective Kingdoms, as in Poland; for in the Elective Kingdoms, designatio personae may be in the People; Yet) Collat. Authoritatis Regiae est a solo Deo, 3. Non a Papa. 4. Non a Lege: My Lord 〈…〉 House, in a long Speech, to prove Kings were not jure divino, told us, that Kings were A league; it was the Law that made them Kings; which was Seditious and Ridiculous.  
For I would gladly know who made that Law, which made the Kings? Certainly the King did not make it; for that Law which made the King, must (of necessity) precede and be before the King, who had his Royal Power, and Kingly Office from that Law.  
Nor was there ever in this Nation, any other Power to make such a Law. For this Nation (so far as we have any History that mentions it) was ever Governed by Kings: So in the times of the Britain's, Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans, Kingly Government was Established here. Sed transeat cum caeteris erroribus.  
I am Sir, Your Affectionate Friend, and faithful Servant. Tho. Lincoln.   

A Letter answering some Queries about Abby-Lands, and about the Opinions of Calvin and Luther of the punishing of Heretics.  
SIR,  
AS to your first Question about the value of Abby-Lands, your Calculation is ingenious; and if the Revenue was no more than that your Author says, the poor Monks had very short Allowance. But he who says, the whole Revenue of all the Abby-Lands was no more than 261100 l. per Annum, is much mistaken; for undoubtedly it was far more.  
Weaver in his Antiquities of Canterbury, has something of it, and Sir William Dugdale in his Monasticon; but I neither remember what they say, nor have I time to consult them.  
2. As to your Query, What Calvin's Opinion was, of burning a whole City for Idolatry, in his Commentary on Deut. 13.15. to which you refer me: I must to this Query say, 1. That I find not any Commentary of Calvin, (tho' he has writ on the Pentateuch) on that Verse or Chapter. 2. The Jews Rabbis (even Maimonides, the most Learned of them, as Ainsworth on that place tells you) expound that place of all the Inhabitants, which were guilty of Idolatry, (both the Seducers and Seduced) but none else. Only the goods of those in the City, who were not Idolatees, were to be burnt as well as the goods of the Idolaters. 3. When you inquire of Luther's Judgement on the same Text, I can only say, 1. That Luther has not writ any Commentary on Deuteronomy. 2. Whether he do occasionally explain that Text, in any of his other Works, I do not remember. 3. For putting the Heretics to death, as such, (that is, merely as Heretics.)  
1. The Donatists (in St. Augustin's time) first put those to death which did not consent to their Opinions.  
2. The Papists universally agree in this, that Heretics, (that is, all who do not believe as they do) must be put to death.  
3. Calvin and the Senate of Geneva, put 
(a) Vide Calvinum Libro in Servetum scripto, & in Commentariis in Titum.  Servetus (an Arrian) to death. And Beza 
(b) Inter Opera Bezae. T●m. 1. pag. 85. Edit. Genevae, 1582.  justifies the fact, in his Tract, De Haereticis à Magistratu puniendis; where he citys Melanchton, Bullinger, Capito, and many more Protestants, who (he says) were of the same Opinion.  
4. But the Church of England did never put any Papists to death, though Heretics, and Idolaters; and it is publicly affirmed and justified, in a Book called, Justitia Legum Anglicarum, etc. And, for my part, I should not be willing that any Heretic should be punished with death, unless he join with his Heresy, blasphemy of God, or disloyalty against the King; or some sins against the Law of Nature, evidently punishable by the Civil Magistrate, for the preservation of the Public Peace and Safety of the Commonwealth.  
I am, Sir, Your most obliged faithful Friend and Servant, Thomas Lincoln. Buckden, Feb. 26. 1628.   

Bishop Sanderson 5. ad Populum, 1 Tim. 4.3, 4, 5.  
3. Commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with Thanksgiving, etc.  
4. For every Creature of God is good, and not to be refused, if it be received with Thanksgiving:  
5. For it is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer.  
FOR the real and true meaning of this passage of the Apostle, 'tis evident he condemns two Errors in those Apostates from the Faith, which should appear in the latter days.  
1. Their forbidding Marriage, of which I shall say nothing at present.  
2. Their commanding to abstain from Meats— For this second particular, we are further to consider two things.  
1. What Meats they were from which those Apostates were commanded to abstain; and the Text tells us, that it was Meats which God had created to be received (or eaten) with Thanksgiving.  
2. The ground or occasion why the Apostle condemns this in the Apostates, is, because every Creature of God is good, and not to be refused, if received (or eaten) with Thanksgiving.  
Now the most Judicious Bishop Sanderson (my dear deceased Friend) from this general ground, that EVERY Creature of God is good, seems to infer, that there are no Creatures in the World excepted, but every one might be received or eaten with Thanksgiving.  
Now this consequence seems to me not good, nor rational; nor is it possible to conclude the lawfulness of the use of every Creature from the goodness of it, in itself, and for those ends for which, by the infinite power and wisdom of God, they were created.  
For, 'tis most certain, that every Creature (without an exception) is good; but, than it will not follow, that every Creature (without an exception) may lawfully be received and used for meat. In the Text the Apostle condemns the Apostates from the Faith, for commanding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received or eaten. This was their Error and Tyranny, to forbid men the use of those Creatures for their food, which God had created and given them for that very use and end.  
3. And upon this ground it is, that the 4th verse neither is, nor can be meant universally, that every Creature of God (without exception) is good, and not to be refused, if received with Thanksgiving; but with this limitation, every Creature (which God hath created to be received with Thanksgiving) is good, and not to be refused; for otherwise, if the proposition be taken universally, 'tis evidently untrue; for, when the Apostle writ the first Epistle to Timothy, there were many Creatures which (tho' good in themselves, and for the end they were made) were never created by God for Man's food and nourishment, nor were to be received with Thanksgiving, nor could be sanctified by Prayer.  
I instance in 

1. Venenatis.  
2. Prohibitis.    
1. In Venenatis; it is certain that amongst God's Creatures (which are all good, both in themselves, and for the ends for which they were created) there were included Serpents, Rattle-Snakes, etc. which are venomous, and to humane Nature pernicious; which were never created for Man's food, nor to be received with Thanksgiving, nor to be sanctified by Prayer.  
2. In Prohibitis; 'tis also certain that when the Apostle writ this Epistle to Timothy, there werh several of God's good Creatures which (by Divine Law) were prohibited to be received at all, and therefore not to be received or eaten. That this may appear;  
1. 'Tis generally agreed, that St. Paul writ this Epistle Anno Christi 52. when that Excellent person Bishop Sanderson thinks that (by the liberty our blessed Saviour had purchased for us) every Creature of God was good, and might (without sin or scruple of Conscience) be received with Thanksgiving.  
2. 'Tis also generally agreed, that the Decree of the Apostles, Act. 15.28, 29. was made Anno Christi 50, or 51. (secundum computationem veram) wherein things offered to Idols, blood, and things strangled, are expressly forbid to the Gentile Christians; and therefore might not be received and eaten Anno Christi 52. when St. Paul writ that Epistle, being by a Divine Law prohibited a little before Anno Christi 50 or 51 The Obligation of which Law continued long after the time of St. Paul's writing to Timothy, as appears by express Texts.  
1. Act. 21.25. By what James Bishop of Jerusalem tells St. Paul, which was Anno Christi 58. So that then (notwithstanding that every Creature of God was good, yet) neither things offered to Idols, nor blood, nor things strangled, could lawfully be eaten.  
2. Revel. 2.14.— 20. Where eating things offered to Idols, is by our blessed Saviour condemned as a sin, which was 45 years after St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy, which was Anno Christi 52. and St. John Anno Christi 97.  
To say nothing of the Universal Consent of the Christian World for above 1200 years, that by virtue 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, etc. 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 h●● 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 proved, 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. 'Tis most certain, that Voluntas Dei de re faciendâ aut fugiendâ sufficienter revelata, is a Divine Precept, and a binding Law; his Will, when sufficiently revealed, is the adequate Rule of his Worship, and our Obedience; and when it appears that 'tis 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 revealed, 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 seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and us, that you abstain from Idolatry, and from Blood, etc. 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 forbidden 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 Counselled; but the Apostle's Canon is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, onus impositum, a burden laid upon them by the Holy Ghost and the Apostles; It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, to lay this burden upon you, etc. and therefore not only counselled, but (by a Divine Law) bond 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 'tis expressly called 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 signify 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, etc.  
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 judgements 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, enabled 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, etc.) you shall find them, (without mixing their own Passions) calmly denouncing Gods severe anger and judgements against wicked Men or Nations. 'Tis true, your Pagan Prophets and Diviners, who (at Delphos; and such other places where the Devil gave Oracles) took upon them to Prophesy, and foretell 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, (mentioned in a Book called, The Acts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy, etc.) was agreed upon, and what Books writ of it?  
In Answer to this Query, you must know; That the Professio fidei, mentioned 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 Pulished 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 than 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 'tis most certain, that no Church in the Christian World (no not Rome herself) ever did believe it, before the Year, 1564. as might be manifestly proved, (were that my buisiness) by,  
Buckden March, 24. 1685. Your Affectionate Friend, and Servant. T. L.   

A Letter of a New Popish Book than Published, etc.  
Sir,  
I Have received that new Popish Book you so kindly sent me. The Book is much magnified by the Popish Emissaries, and put into the hands of many, to seduce them from our Religion: particularly, it was given to a Gentlewoman in Glocestershire. Two Ministers who were (by her Friends) employed, to undeceive that Gentlewoman, desired me to give them some Motives, to dissuade her from Popery; I did (in two Sheets of Paper) give them such Motives; to which (as yet) no answer is returned.  
But the Gentlewoman gave them a Paper (Penned by her Priest) containing Motives for which she turned a Papist. The Gentlemen brought them to me, I answered them at large in eight Sheets of Paper; and they procured of her, a Copy of the Book you sent me; and last week allowed me time to Read, and return it to them privately. So that I have Read the Book, which is Popularly Penned, with great confidence affirming; but proving nothing with any good consequence; the Author has some Rhetoric; but no good Logic. He makes Universal Tradition of the Church, the prime and grand Foundation of all our Christian Faith and Religion; and I have desired the Gentlemen (who procured me the sight and reading of the Book) to make this offer to the Gentlewoman and her Priest; That if they can prove any one point of Popery, by the Universal Tradition of the Church, we will be their Proselytes. Nay, secondly, If they can prove any one point of Popery, by the constant and successively continued Tradition, of their own Roman Church, from the Apostles time to this day; I will be their Proselyte.  
That which troubles me, is this: our Adversaries are (with diligence and cunning) Sowing Tares, and (I fear) we sleep, (Math. 13.25.) while they are sowing them.  
I am Sir, Your Affectionate Friend, and Servant. T. L. Jan. 3. 1684.   

A Letter to Sir P. P. wherein he apologizeth for his not going to Lincoln; and wherein he proves that Henry the Eighth's Marrying his Brother's Wife was only against the Judicial Law; and animadverts on Calvin's making the Penal Laws about Religion given to the Jews, to bind under the Gospel.  
Sir,  
I Received yours; and this comes (with my humble service) to tell you, that I know not what to say; non ingratus beneficiis, sed oppressus. Your care and kindness for me in this my business, has been so great and extraordinary, that if I be freed from the trouble and disgrace of the threatened Visitation, I must impute it (next to the gracious and powerful Providence of my good God) to the undeserved charity and kindness of the excellent Marquis of Hallifax, and your prudence and diligence in managing that affair. The truth is, I am exceeding sensible (amongst many more) of the great Obligation you have laid upon me in this business, which I can never requite, (beneficia tua indignè aestimat, qui de reddendo cogitat) nor ever shall ingratefully forget.  
For going to Lincoln, (the good Counsel of that 
* The Marquis of Hallifax.  Excellent person) so soon as God shall be graciously pleased to give me ability, I will not fail to do it. But (at present) my Age and Infirmities are such, as disable me for such a Journey: I have not been out of my house this 13 or 14 months, nor able to take any Journey. I have writ to my Lord Privy Seal, the Reasons of my not going to Lincoln: 1. I have no House there. 2. Buckden (as you told him) is in the Centre of my Diocese, and stands far more conveniently for all business. 3. Bishop Sanderson lived and died at Buckden, and Bishop Lany lived there too, till he was translated to Ely; nor were they ever accused or complained on for it. 4. That Lincoln might not think I was unkind and neglected them; I sent them 100 l. of which 50 l. to the Church, and the other 50 l. to the City; and since that I gave the City 20 l. towards their Expense in renewing their Charter, which none of my Predecessors have done; and yet I only must be accused and uncharitably condemned by my Enemies; Causa indictâ & inauditâ.  
Ah! my dear Friend, it is not my absence from Lincoln, or any of those little things they (I mean the Popish Party) object against me, which troubles them; but that which indeed sets them on to calumniate me, is, they know I am an Enemy to Rome, and their miscalled Catholic Religion and (God willing) while I live, shall be so, & hinc illae Lachrymae.  
I have been Loyal to my good King, and dutiful to my holy Mother the Church of England; and (pardon my confidence) I have done them more faithful and better service, than any of mine Enemies have, or can: And notwithstanding any discouragements, I shall God enabling me continue to do so. I am not afraid to anger my Popish Enemies, or of any mischief they can do me. I serve a most gracious and omnipotent God, who can, and (I hope) will deliver me from their Cruelties and, if not, they shall know, that I will never worship the abominable Idols they have set up. I have something, which, in convenient time, I shall publish, which will anger them more than any thing I have yet done.  
For what you mention, of Henry 8. that his Marrying his Brother's Wife, was only against the Judicial Law of the Jews; is evidently true; such a Marriage is not against the Law of Nature.  
For, 1. Cain and Abel could not possibly marry any, save their Sisters; yet God (who never commands any thing against the Law of Nature) commanded them to increase and multiply, who could not lawfully multiply, but by lawful Marriage.  
2. Sarah was Abraham's Sister, (Gen. 20. v. 12.) and God himself saith, that she was his Wife, (Gen. 20.3.) but had it been against the Law of Nature to marry a Sister, she might have been his Concubine, but not his Legal Wife. For 'tis both Law and Reason, Contractus contra Naturam initus est nullus.  
3. In the Levitical Law, God (who never does command any thing against the Law of Nature) commands a Brother to take his Brother's Wife, (to marry her) to raise up seed to his Brother.  
But the thing is evident, and needs no further proof.  
For what you desire, concerning Calvin's Opinion on Deut. 13.6, 9 and Zech. 13.3. His Opinion is on Zech. 13.3. That these penal severe Laws do bind us under the Gospel; his words there, are these; Sequitur ergo non modo legem illam fuisse Judaeis positam, quemadmodum nugantur fanatici homines, (so I am a Fanatique in honest Calvin's Opinion) sed extenditur ad nos etiam eadem Lex, etc. yet 'tis evident those Laws were never given to th' Gentiles, (Rom. 9.4. Eph. 2.12.) and therefore neither did, nor could bind 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 expressly 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 Heretic 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 allowed to the Protestants in France, to Print Books there against Popery, etc.  
Sir,  
FOR your first Question; Whether the Protestants in France, have Printed any Books against the Doctrine of the Church of Rome?  
I say, 'tis 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 damned 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; etc. these and hundreds more,) you may find damned in their Indices Expurgatorii.  
2. It is evident, that the Protestants in France (till this present King ruin'd them) had several Universities, in their command, and under their jurisdsction, and Presses and Printers belonging to them. Now in those Universities, they had public 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, etc. 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. Co●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 public 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 etc. 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 Gazettes (and some Letters) told us, that the French King was recovered, 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 inhuman 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.  known 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 inhuman 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 Majesty's cheerful 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. etc. (such Sums as were never subscribed to any Brief before;) and when I consider the strange cheerfulness of all People to contribute, with a far more than usual liberality: I say, when I consider these particulars, I cannot choose but impute such a cheerfulness, 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 Protestant's 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 cheerful, and Charitable willingness, to relieve their necessities.  
However I am persuaded, that this most inhuman and Barbarous Persecution of the Innocent French Heretics, (as they miscall them) will make all sober Papists abhor the Pope and his party, who use such Unchristian, and Antichristian means to make Proselytes, and endeavour to bring Men to the Catholic Faith (as they pretend) by Dragoons, and Imprisonments, not by demonstrations, and Reasons out of Scripture.  
For my Lord Anglesey's Papers (which you mention) I should be glad to see them; for I well know, that he had a great Understanding, not only of things Civil and Political, but Theological too.  
Concerning the Question (you mention) of the Intention of the Priest, and the dispute about it in the Council of Trent, by a Bishop there; you have the story in Father Paul's History of the Council, lib. 2. pag. 240, 241. The Bishop who Disputed excellently well, against that Intention of the Priest, was (as he tells you) the Bishop of Minori; and that the Fathers did not 
(a) Father Paul's History of that Council pag. 242.  approve his Opinion; but that they were troubled and knew not how to Answer his Reasons. However, the Bishop of Minori, did (as he tells us, in the Margin of that Page, 242.) a Year after the Council, Writ a little Book, wherein he says, that the Fathers of the Council were of his Opinion.  
The truth is, they maintain the necessity of the Priest's Intention, to magnify the Priest's Power, and the People's dependence on him; for if they Anger him, he may (as is and must be confessed) absolutely damn them.  
For they Confess, if he intent not, all their Sacraments are absolute Nullities: So that in the Eucharist; if the Priest intent not to Consecrate, it remain Bread still, and they then Worshipping it (as they do) with Latria, are the worst Idolaters 
(b) This is confessed and proved by Costerus the Jesuit, in his Enchiridion Controversiarum, cap. 8. num. 10. pag. 361. Editionis Colon. Agrippin. 1587.  in the World. In short, this their Doctrine of Intention, is most erroneous, and (to them) pernicious.  
For, 1. None in the Papacy who is Married, can be so much as morally sure, that his Children are not Bastards, and every time he lies with his Wife, he commits not Fornication. For Matrimony (with them) being a Sacrament, if the Priest did not intent to Marry them; then 'tis no Marriage, and then his Children are Bastards, and he a Fornicator in begetting them.  
2. And once more, (notwithstanding their pretended Infallibility) they can never be so much as morally certain that there is one true Christian in their whole Church. For if those who Baptise do not intent it, they are not Baptised, and so not Christians; and whether they intent or no, is impossible for any (save God who knows the Heart) to know; and therefore, it is impossible to know that any in their Church (no not the Pope) is a Christian.  
However this I am sure of, that I am, and intent to be,  
Your affectionate Friend, and Servant. Thom. Lincoln. Bugden April, 20. 1686.   

A Letter of somewhat falsely and maliciously brought in, in the Body of the Canon-Law.  
My Honoured Friend,  
FOR the Gloss you mention, on the Can. Quoniam Dist. 10. give me leave to tell you,  
1. That in an old Edition of the 
(a) Edit. Paris. An. 1522.  Canon-Law, with the Gloss and Case, there is not one word, or any mention of Cyprian or Julian.  
2. In the Edition of that Law, with the Gloss and Case 
(b) An. 1612.  at Paris, (which it seems you follow) there is mention of Cyprian and Julian too.  
3 If you consult a Late 
(c) Edit. Lugduni, 1661.  Edition of the Corpus Juris Canonici, (without the Gloss, and many considerable Additions) you will find several Notes subjoined to that Canon, Quoniam, Dist. 10.  
For instance;  
1. That in some Printed Copies of the Canon-Law, the Title prefixed to the Can. Quoniam, was this— Cyprianus Julio Imperatori, which is ridiculous; it being impossible that Cyprian should write to Julius the Emperor, who was dead almost 300 years before Cyprian was born.  
2. In those Notes we are told, that in all the Manuscripts (one in the Vatican excepted) the word Imperatori, was left out, and in one Manuscript Copy it was, Cyprianus Juliano Episcopo; whence (it seems) some ignorant Transcribers, had made it, Cyprianus Juliano Imperatori; and yet Cyprian was dead, at least 100 years before Julian was Emperor, and so was not like to write to him.  
3. In those Notes above 
(d) In Edit. Lugd. 1661.  mentioned, in some Ancient Copies, 'tis, Cyprianus Episcopo Jubiano.  
4. The Premises considered; that there is such great difference, and various readings of that Gloss, as, 1. Cyprianus Julio Imperatori. 2. That the word Imperatori, was in no Manuscript Copy, save one. 3. That in some Copies, it was, Cyprianus Juliano Imperatori. 4. In others, Cyprianus Juliano Episcopo. 5. In others, Cyprianus Jubiano Episcopo. 6. In others (as in the Printed Edition at Paris 1522.) there is no mention at all, of Cyprian, Julian, or any Emperor. So that nothing is, or can be certainly concluded (as to Julian's being Pontifex, and the Glossator calling him so) from such various and uncertain readings.  
5. That the Roman Emperors (and anciently all Kings) were Sacerdotes & Pontifices, 
(a) Can. Cleros, Dist. 21.  Gratian (out of 
(b) Etymol. l. 7. cap. 12.  Isidore) tells us, in these words— Ante autem Pontifice● & Reges erant; nam majorum haec consuetudo fuit, ut Rex esset Sacerdos & Pontifex; inde & Pontifices Romani Imperatores appellabantur. At the beginning of the World, and till Moses his time (when God annexed the Priesthood to Aaron and his Family) Imperium & Sacerdotium, were in Primogenito. And after our blessed Saviour's time, the Priesthood was in the Apostles, and their Successors; yet the Pagan Emperors kept the Sacerdotium in their hands, and were called Summi Pontifices; but when the Emperors became Christians, (with the Gloss he mentions out of Cyprian) (tho' Cyprian was dead before Constantine, and any Christian Emperor) but citys no place in Cyprian to prove it.  
6. For the Glossator (honest John Semeca) if you consult the Paralipomena, ad Abbatis Vespergensis Chronicon, ad Annum 1256. pag. 332. you will find high commendations of him and his Gloss; that he was Praepositus Halberstatensis, and was an excellent Dr. of the Laws, and excommunicated by Clemens the 4th, who was made Pope An. 1264. but both the Pope and he died shortly after, and so (with their Lives) that Quarrel ended.  
I am, Sir, Your affectionate Friend, and faithful Servant, Tho. Lincoln.   

Sir P. P. having observed many to look with an evil Eye on the Clerical Revenue, and that in the considering of the affluent Quota the Levitical Tribe had allotted to it by the Divine Wisdom; yet of the Proportion that the Number of the Levites held with the Number of all the People of the other Tribes, no Authors he had read, had made any exact Calculations: And as for example, that the Author of the Present State of England had quoted Selden about the large Revenue of the Levites, and their being not the fourth part of the Twelve Tribes; and that the History of the Council of Trent mentions the Fathers of that Council, as saying, that tho' God gave the Tenth to the Levites, they were but the thirteenth part of the Jews; he knowing Bishop Barlow to be both an excellent Text-man in the Scriptures, and a good Arithmetician, he applied to the Bishop to send him his Judgement in writing about the Levitical Revenue, and the Proportion of their Number with the People of the other Tribes; and his Lordship sent him in a Letter the following Paper; viz.  
Numb. 1.46. The Number of the Twelve Tribes (reckoning Manasseh and Ephraim for two, the Levites left out, from twenty years and upwards,) was— 603550.  
1 That is, of the Tribe of Reuben 46500, verse 21. Another numbering, Numb. 26. verse 7.  
   verse,  verse, 1 Of Reuben 43730.  2 Of Simeon 22200. 14. 2 Simeon 59300. 23. 3 Gad 40500. 18. 3 Gad 45650. 25. 4 Judath 76500. 22. 4 Judah 74600. 27. 5 Issacar 64300. 25. 5 Issacar 54400. 29. 6 Zebulon 60500. 27. 6 Zebulon 57400. 31. 7 Ephraim 32500. 37. 7 Ephraim 40500. 33. 8 Manasseth 52700. 34. 8 Manasseth 32200. 35. 9 Benjamin 45600. 41. 9 Benjamin 35400. 37. 10 Dan 64400. 43. 10 Dan 62700. 39 11 Asher 53400. 47. 11 Asher 41500. 41. 12 Napthali 45400. 50. 12 Napthali 53400. 43.  
Summa totalis, 601730 less than the former number 603550. by 1820. All the former number were dead; save Caleb and Joshua, verse, 64, 65. In all 603550. The Levites were numbered from a Month old and upwards, Numb. 3.39. and their number was, 22000. So that the Levites (numbered from a Month old and upward) were not a Twenty seventh part of the Israelites (tho' numbered only from 20 years old and upward) whose number contained the number of the Levites 27. times, and 9550 over.  
And although the Levites were so far from being a tenth, that they were not the 27th part of Israel, yet they had,  
1. A ten th' of the whole Land, etc.  
2. And very many other things more. A Catalogue we of them, we have particularly, Numb. 18.8, 9, 10. etc.  
3. They had 48. Cities, with their Suburbs, Numb. 35.7. Josh. 21.41. more Cities than any Tribe had, save the Royal Tribe of Judah.  
Sir P.P. having received from the Bishop the above account of this matter, so elaborately drawn; and withal so satisfactorily, to demonstrate that the Levites, were not the 27th part of Israel; he having been much Conversant with the Calculations of the Curious Observator of the Bills of Mortality (as the Lord Chief Justice Hales in his Origination of Mankind calls him;) he returned the Bishop another Paper about that Subject (after having first shown it to Dr. Robert Wood, an acute Mathematician, and found his approbation thereof) that so he might have the Bishops further and final thoughts of the whole matter.  
And that Paper is as followeth, viz.  
The Number of the Israelites from 20 Years old and upwards (the Levites, being left out).  
Numb. c. 1.    c. 26. v. 21. 46500. Reuben 43730. v. 7. 23. 59300. Simeon 22200. 14. 25. 45650. Gad 40500. 18. 27. 74600. Judah 76500. 22. 29. 54400. Issachar 64300. 25. 31. 57400. Zebulon 60500. 27. 33. 40500. Ephraim 32500. 37. 35. 32200. Manasseth 52700. 34. 37. 35400. Benjamin 45600. 41. 39 62700. Dan 64400. 43. 41. 41500. Asher 53400. 47. 43. 53400. Napthali 45400. 50. 46. 603550. Sum 601730. 51. c. 3. 39 22000. Levites, 23000. 62.  From a Month old and upwards.   
But the Number of the People of any Nation from a Month Old and upwards, is more than double their Number, from 20 Years Old and upwards.  
Wherefore, divide the number of the Israelites, from 20. Years old and upwards; by half the number of the Levites from a month Old and upwards: And it will appear (by any reckoning) that the Levites were not 1/52th, part of the number of the other Tribes; perhaps not 1/60th, that is to say, The number of the other Tribes contained the number of the Levites 52. times, perhaps 60. times.  
And yet the Levites had,  
1. The tenth or tithe of the whole Land, together with its Culture, etc.  
2. Many other profits and advantages enumerated, Numb. 18. v. 8, 9, 10. etc.  
3. They had 48 Cities, with their Suburbs; or Territory for their Cattle. Numb. 3●. 7. Josh. 21.4. viz. more than any Tribe, save the Royal Tribe of Judah.  
Be pleased to take notice that the Levites not being a 52. part of the number of the other Tribes is certain: And their not being a 60th part is Conjectural; because 16 is the middle Year of the number of the living, that is to say, there are as many under the Age of 16. as above it. And consequently there are more under 20. than above it; because some dye between 16 and 20.  
So much as to the notion of the Israelites, being reckoned from 20. years old and upwards, and the Levites from a month old and upwards.  
Now as to the Levites having the Tenth, or Tithe of the whole Land together with its Culture, that may very rationally be judged to be as much more: In Ireland, the charge of the Culture, is four times at least as much as the Rent of the Land.  
In the best parts of England, as Essex, etc. Near London, the Culture is about double the Rent of the Land; as suppose arable at a medium in Essex, 10 Shillings an Acre, the charge of the Culture is at least as much, Communibus Annis. So that then the Levites had a double tenth; that is, they had a fifth and yet perhaps were but the 60. part of the People. And they having a fifth, and there being twelve times five in sixty; therefore every Levite at a medium, or one with another, had twelve times as much as other People one with another had.  
There are in England 10000 Parishes, and every Parish may be supposed to have a Curate, beside the Minister. If it be said that some Parishes, reverâ have not Curates; I answer that the Supernumerary expectant Clergy may balance that.  
It may further be rationally supposed, that each of our 10000 Ministers hath a Wife, and four Children; it having been made out by the Observations on the Bills of Mortality, that one Marriage with another (first and second) produceth four Children; it appearing out of those Bills, that there are four Christen for one Marriage.  
Thus then at this rate, we may suppose 10000 times six of the Tribe of Levi in England, that is, 60000.  
In Henry the VIII ' s. time, the Church had a third of the Revenue of the Kingdom. A fourth of this third, or a twelfth of the whole (supposing the whole were a Shilling, the third must be a Groat, and a fourth of that three pence, namely the groat must be a penny, which is the twelfth of a Shilling) was in Abbey Lands suppressed. And consequently the unsuppressed Abbey Lands, are a fourth of the whole, by the former Computation; that is to say three pence in the Shilling; which according to Sir William Pettys Calculation, is t●o Millions per Annum; the whole Revenue of the Land being reckoned by him to be per Annum 8 Millions.  
The Number now of the English Levites, i. e. our Levites and their Wife's and Children, being 60000. and the People of England, being according to his Calculation six Millions; they are but the one hundredth part of the whole People; so than a hundredth part of the People hath a fourth: And then every one with another, may seem to have the twenty fifth, i. e. twenty five times one with another, as much as the Laity have one with another: That is to say, more than double what they had in Israel.  
But then if we consider the forty eight Cities, the Israelitish Levites had with other Emoluments; the balance between their Levites, and ours may perhaps be equal.  
If Popery were here in England, the Levites would be but 10000 as being hindered from Marrying, which Ministers now generally do. And supposing they had none of the Abbey Lands back again; the 10000 would have to live upon now, what now maintains 60000. and consequently one Priest would have as much as 150. now have.  
The King's 10ths. here would then be 200000l. a year.  Pondere, Mensurâ, Numero, Deus omnia fecit. Mensuram & pondus numeres, numero omnia fecit. Facile est inventis addere. 
The Bishop being not more ready to teach than to receive information in any thing, and being satisfied with the measures of Calculation taken in this Paper; was willing that the World abroad as well as here at home should be illuminated in this matter: And thereupon sent to Sir P. P. his final thoughts drawn up in Latin; the which so accurately setting forth what proportion the number of the Levites held with the number of all the People of the other Tribes, are as followeth, viz.  
1. Numerus Populi Israelitici, ab Anno aetatis 20 Juxta Mosis Computum, Num. 1.20.46 erat, 603550 2. Numerus Levitaruus, a primo aetatis Ménse; per Mosem computatus, Numb 3.39. erat, 22000 3. Numero primo per secundum Diviso, quotus erit, 27 9550/22000 4. Ex hoc igitur Calculo Evidentèr Constat, numerum Populi Israelitici, licet ab Anno aetatis 20. computatio instituatur, continere numerum Levitarum (licet a primo aetatis mense numerentur.) 27 9550/22000  
5. Sed supposito, quod numerus populi annum 20. nondum assecuti, aequalis sit numero populi, post dictum Annum superstitis; Quaeritur, quae sit proportio inter Levitas a primo aetatis mense numeratas, & populum ab eodom Termino numeratum? Hoc ut Constet.  
1. Datus populi numerus 603550. est duplicandus, eritique numerus, 1207100 2. Dividatur dictus numerus, per numerum Levitarum 22000 eritque quotus. 54 22000/19100 3. Sed si dictus numerus 603550. per dimidum numeri Levitarum 11000. dividatur, tum quotus erit, 54 11000/9550  
4. Hinc Constat quotum in utraque Divisione non esse eundem, (quantum ad numerum reliquum divisore minorem, quia, 1. In priori Divisione est, 19100 2 In secundâ, 9550 3. Est Ideo prior numerus posteriori duplo major; bis enem continet 9550 4 Numeris enim duobus postremis additis, oritur numerus (Ex Tribus ultimis) primus, 19100  
If the Reader hath the curiosity further to entertain his thoughts about this subject, he may consult Sir Peter Pets Happy future State of England, Printed for William Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstans-Church in Fleetstreet Where he will find the Number of the Levites thus adjusted in page 93. The Index before the Book will direct any Reader to more Calculations about the Clerical Revenue, than he will perhaps find from all other Authors: And this Author doth particularly deserve the thanks of our English Clergy for his Animadversions on the most subtle & ingenious Book that ever was writ against them, in p 160. 161. etc. And where to p. 167. he demonstrates the present Clerical Revenue of England to be reasonable and necessary, and very far from excess in its proportion. And all future assertors of the same may usefully crave aid from his Calculations in that Book about it.   

A Letter to Mr. R. T. Concerning the Confirmation of the Order of the Jesuits, the Numbers of that Order, etc.  
FOR the Jesuits, their Order was first confirmed, Anno 1540 and (the worst Weeds and Vermin multiply most,) they were grown so numerous, that in the Quarrel between the Pope and the Venetians, Claudius Aquivina (General of the Jesuits) offered to assist the Pope with 40000 of his own Society, on this Condition, That all those of his Society who were slain in that quarrel, should be Canonised. Since, they are vastly multiplied to a prodigious number of Persons, (some Clergy and in Orders, some Laiques of both Sexes) and Colleges, and a vast Revenue; so that they neither want Men nor Money to do mischief.  
That which is most mischievous to England, is the Colleges (they have the Government of them) for English Fugitives, and training up the Sons of our Popish Nobility and Gentry, which have been constantly sent thither, and infected with impious Principles, destructive to our Church and State, and then sent over hither to practise them. For their Colleges, they have one at 
(a) Vid. Camden's Elizab. English. pag. 216, etc.  Douai, Founded Anno. 1568. Eliz. 10. by Card. Allen's means, to which the Pope allowed a yearly Pension. Another at Rome, founded by Gregory XIII. Another at Rheimes. Another at Validolid in Spain, and (if I forget not) another at Salamanca. They take an 
* Camden ibi. pag. 577. vid. Bullarium Romanum Romae. 638. Tom. 2. pag. 219, 220. vid. ibi. Bullam institutionis Collegii Anglici in Vrbe, & lib. 4. dictae Bullae. 16. 17. de Juramento, etc.  Oath when they are admitted into those Colleges, to come into England, when their Superiors send them to promote (quantum in se est) the Catholic Cause, that is, in plain English, Rebellion and Heresy; which they have industriously and impiously done, especially since the 
(b) Camden ●b. pag. 217.  Jesuits first came into England, which was Anno 1580. Eliz. 22.  
How they got Money to defray the Charges of their Missions, and their Persons employed in mischief, you may be sure they will not tell us in Print, but the World knows they have and give great Sums to such purposes. Holt a Jesuit offered one 
(c) Camden ●b. pag. 440.  Edward York 40000 ducats to kill Q. Elizabeth; and before 
(d) Idem. ibid. ●ag. 430.  that, 50000 ducats were promised (and by agreement contracted for) to 
It was Lopes Jew, called ●he Queen's Physician.  one who undertook to Poison the said Queen. These are good Sums employed to impious and bad purposes, and are raised sometimes by the Jesuits themselves, (who are very Rich, (though they have vowed poverty,) sometimes by the Pope, the King of Spain, Regulars of other Orders, (besides the Jesuits) or our English Papists; for all concur to propagate the Catholic Cause. God Almighty confound their Conspiracies, and (though we deserve it not) preserve the bleeding Church and Nation.  
Tuus, T. L.   

A Letter Censuring the Trent Council's denying the use of the Cup to the Laity in the Eucharist.  
My honoured Friend,  
IN answering to yours, I shall acquaint you, that in the Chapter and Session of the Trent Council you mention, it is determined that it is not necessary that Laymen and Priests (who do not Consecrate) should receive the Cup; because (say they) there is no Precept which requires Communion in both kinds; and therefore the Church has power (saluà Sacramentorum substantiâ) to add and take away some things in the administration of them.  
But 1. It is evident in the Text, that our Blessed Saviour expressly commands that they should all have the Cup, Drink ye ALL of it, Mat. 26.27. he does not say so of the Bread, but only take eat; so that they might with some more pretence, have taken away the Bread. 2. It is also certain, that to drink the Cup is as much of the Substance of the Sacrament, as to eat the Bread. For as Meat and Drink are substantial parts of our food to nourish our Bodies in a natural way, so the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, are substantial parts of our food to nourish our Souls in a Sacramental and Spiritual way. 3. If there be 20 Priests at the Mass in the Church of Rome, only one of them (he that Consecrates) receives the Cup: And yet at the Institution, there were 12 Priests (the twelve Apostles) none of which did Consecrate, and yet all received the Cup, Mark 14.23. So that it is very observable, that concerning the Bread, it is only said, Take eat, this is my Body. But there is nothing expressed in any of Gospels, that he bid them all eat, or that they did all eat. Whereas for the Cup, we have, 1 an express command in Matthew, Drink ye All of this. 2. And St. Mark as expressly tells us, they did ALL drink it. And therefore the Church of Rome had ill luck, to take away the Cup, seeing they might have taken away the Bread, with less scandal to their Cause, for acting against the express comm●n● of our blessed Saviour, who does 〈◊〉 expressly command them all to eat the ●read.  
2. But besides this Institution of the Sacrament in both kinds, a●● Christian Churches in the World, (both Men and Women, Clergy and Laity) received it in both kinds for above 1100 years after our blessed Saviour, and all Christian Churches (except Rome) do so to this day.  
That all in the Roman Church received in both kinds, (to omit many others) we have the most signal Testimony of Cardinal Bona, (who is yet living, or lately dead, for there is an Epistle of his to the Bishop of Condom's Book, dated Jan. 1672.) This good Cardinal expressly says, what I have done, as you may see in his own words in the 
(a) SEMPER & VBIQVE ab Ecclesiae primordijs usque ad saeculum 12. sub specie panis & vini communicarunt fideles; caepitqu; paulatim ejus saeculi initio, usus Calicis obsolescere, plerisque Episcopis eum populo interdicentibus ob periculum irreverentiae & effusionis. Card. Bona. Rerum Liturgicarum. lib. 2. Cap. 18. pag. 492. Editionis Romae. 1672.  Margin.  
But they tell us, that the whole humanity of our Blessed Saviour, (Body and Blood) is in the Host, and so the Laics have the blood in that Host or Wafer. Though this be a stupid and prodigious error, yet admit it, that the whole body and blood of our blessed Saviour be in the Wafer or Host (as they call it,) yet certainly they do not (what our blessed Saviour requires) drink the blood in that dry Wafer.  
I am Sir, Your Affectionate Friend, and Servant. T. L.   

A Letter charging the Tenet of the lawfulness of the burning Heretical Cities on the Church of Rome.  
Sir,  
IN obedience to your Commands, I shall return some answer to the Queries you propose. 1. Then, when you inquire whether the Church of Rome may be justly charged with that Doctrine of burning Towns wherein Heretics are, though many Catholics be in them?  
I answer, 1. That old Abraham (as honest and just as the Pope, no disparagement to his Holiness) thought it 
(a) Gen. 18.23, 24, 25.  unjust for God himself, who is infinitely just and good) to burn Sodom, had but ten, (or any) just Men been in it  
2. But the Pope thinks otherwise and I believe we may justly say it, not only on him, or particular Papists, but to the Popish Church.  
For 1. It is certain, that their Canonists generally, even the most approved and greatest of them (such as John Semeca the Glossator on Gratian, Cardinal Turrecremata, etc.) hold and vindicate that Opinion. The 
(a) Can. si audieris. 32. Cap. 23. l. 5.  Canon which you mention, is taken out of Moses his 
(b) Deut. 13.  Law; by which Cities were to be burnt, for the Idolatry of some. And though Cardinal Turrecremata (as you well know) says truly that, that was a Judicial Law, and bound the Jews only, to whom only it was given; yet he adds, that in the New Testament, 
(c) DEBENT LONGE MAGIS in Nou. Testamento talia praecepta institui & instituta servari. Ad dictum Can. Si audieris. §. 3.  MUCH MORE AUGHT there such a Law to be MADE against Heretics, and OBSERVED. Now this Doctrine has never been condemned or censured as erroneous by the Church of Rome; and then, quae non prohibet peccare cum possit, jubet. Consult all their Indices Expurgatorij, (the Spanish, Belgic, that of Portugal, etc.) And if you find that Doctrine damned in any of them, I will recant.  
2. Nay, 'tis so far from that, that the Books which assert this Doctrine, are published with the approbation and commendation of their Censores Librorum; who are appointed by their Church, (by the 
(d) Nulli liceat imprimere, quosvis libros de re bks sacris neque illos vendere aut apud se retinere. nisi prius examinati probatique ab ordinario, etc. Council. Trident. Sess. 4. In decreto de Editione & usu sacrorum librorum.  Decree of the Trent Council) to examine all Books which writ of Sacred Things, and meddle with Scripture, (as this and all their Canons do,) and not to permit them to be printed, sine Licentia Superiorum; without the care and approbation of their Superiors. So that it is evident that the Books which maintain this Doctrine, (and so the Doctrine itself,) have the approbation of those, who are publicly authorised by the Roman Church to examine them.  
3. But, what is much more (which you well observe,) this Doctrine of Burning Cities, with the Heretics in them, is expressly approved and taught, in the Body of their Canon Law; in Gratian's Decretum, (to say nothing of the Decretals,) and before him in Juo Carnotensis; and before him, in Burchardus Wormatiensis; It is also registered for Law, by the Author of their Pannormia; (Pannomia he would have said, had he understood any Greek.) I need not cite the places, because they are 
(a) In the Corpus Juris Canonici. Paris, 1612. ad Can. si audieris. 32. etc. The places in Burchardus, Juo, and the Pannonia are quoted in the Margin.  cited in the Body of the Law itself.  
Now it will be evident, 1. That this Law of firing whole Cities, to consume Heretics, has been by the Church of Rome publicly received for Law, almost for 700 
(b) Burchardus flourished Anno. 1010. Bellarmine de Script. Ecclesiast. in Burchardo.  years' last passed, and that without any contradiction as to this Canon we are now speaking of. I find indeed, that Thomas Manrique Master of the Sacred Palace at Rome, almost an hundred years ago, 
(a) Censura in Glossas Jur. Canonici ex Archetypo Rom. Coloniae. 157●  censured many of the ●losse● of the Canon Law, (and he might have justly censured many more;) but he does not at all censure the Gloss 
(b) Glossa ad dictum Canonem. verbo, Omnes qui.  of this Canon (si Audieris) we are speaking of; which contains the sense of the Canon in short; and therefore 'tis evident that he did not dislike the Canon itself, nor the burning an Heretical City, though some Catholics were consumed in it.  
2. But after this, in the 
(c) Vide Gregorii 13. Bullam datam Romae, Anno. 1580. Juri Canonico praesixam.  year 1580. Gregory 13. appointed some Cardinals, aliosque Doctrinâ & pietate insignes (as he tells us in his Bull) to review the whole Body of their Law (both the Text and Gloss) and purge it from all faults and errors. And Bellarmine says, this was effectually done, 
(d) Bellarmin. de Scriptor. Ecclesiast. in Gratiano, ad Annum. 1145.  Hoc opus a mendis purgatum, & suae INTEGRITATI RESTITUTUM FVIT â Viris quibusdam eruditissimis, authoritate Gregorii 13. And the Pope himself, in the said Bull tells us; That the whole work was committed to the Master of the Sacred ●alace, Recognoscendum & approbandum; and then (as it follows in the said Bull) the Pope, ex plenitudine potestatis Apostolicae, confirms all this; and commands all Catholics to receive this incorrupt Edition of the Canon-Law by him published, tam in judicio, quam extra judicium; so as, Nulli liceat quicquid addere, detrahere, aut immutare: and if any disobey and 
(a) Contra inobedientes & Rebels etiam per censuras Ecclesiasticas etiam sapius aggravandas— Invocato, si opus fuerit, auxilio brachii saecularis, etc. Ibidem in dicta Bullâ.  rebel (as he calls it) they are to be compelled by Ecclesiastical Censures, and (if that will not do) delivered over to the Secular Power, and so to death.  
Now, as what is in our Canons of the Church of England (being approved and and enjoined by the King our Supreme Power, and received in our Courts and common use) may justly be imputed to the Church of England; so the Popish Canons having been received as Law, and practised and used as Law, in their Courts and Consistories for almost 700 years, and confirmed by the express Constitution of the Supreme (and if the Canonists and Jesuits say true) and Infallible Power of their Church; I say, (on those grounds) whatever Doctrine (Burning Cities, or any other) is contained in those Canons, may justly be imputed to that Church.  
But that which is much more to our present purpose, is; That the believing and receiving the Sacred 
(b) Caetera omnia à SACRIS CANONIBUS, & aecumenicis Conciliis, praecipue a Tridentinâ Synodo definita, indubitanter recipio & profiteor, etc. Hanc fidem Catholicam, extra quam non est salus, sponte profiteor, eamque integram usque ad extremum vitae spiritum retinere, etc. Ego N. Spondeo, Voveo, Juro. Vide Concil. Trident. Antverp. 1633. Sess. 24. De Reformat. in calce, Cap. 12. Vbi exta● Bulla Pii. 4. super forma professionis fidei.  Canons, is made an Article of their new Trent-Creed, and all their ecclesiastics (Secular and Regular) are to Promise, Swear and Vow to profess and maintain them to their last breath.  
4. And when it is objected that their Canon Law was not received entirely in England or France, and therefore all the extravagant Doctrines and Positions contained in it, cannot be imputed to the Church of Rome.  
In answer to this, I say, 1. That the Objection is inconsequent, and a manifest nonsequitur. For the errors of the Canon-Law may justly be imputed to the Church of Rome, though England and France received it not; because what the Pope (the Supreme Head of that Church) and the far greater part of the Popish World do receive, the Church receives. Denominatio sequitur majorem partem.  
2. And that this is true, that the Doctrines in the Canon-Law (notwithstanding some may not receive them all) are the Doctrines of the Church of Rome, I have two Provincial Synods here in England expressly declaring it; one at 
(a) Vide Concilia per Hen. Spelmannum. Tom. 2. pag. 653. §. Nulius quoque  Oxford, another at 
(b) Apud eundem Spelman. Ibidem. Tom. 2. pag. 666. §. 9  London, under Archbishop Arundel; in both which they declare; That, Articuli qui in Decretis aut Decretalibus continentur, sunt Articuli terminati per ECCLESIAM; the Church of Rome (we may be sure) they mean. So that in the judgement of these two Provincial Councils, the Canon-laws are the determinations and definitions of the Church of Rome, and so whatever errors be in those Laws and Canons, may justly be imputed to the Roman Church.  
3. The Canon-law was received 
Nul●us de Articulis term●nalis per Ecclesiam, prout in Decretis, in Decret●libus, nisi ad habendum verum eorum intellectum, disp●tare praesumat, aut Authoritatem eorundem Decretorum aut Decretalium, potestatemve condentis eadem, in dubium revocet. Paenas Haeresis & relapsi incurrat, etc.  here in England, as is evident by the two Councils before cited, and in the places cited. It is certain that the Canon-laws were received both in England and France, except where (in some few things) they clashed with our Common or Statute Laws; for then the Parliament would say: Nolumus Leges Angliae mutari: And so in France, if they clashed with the Liberties of the Gallican Church, they would neither receive nor obey the Canons. But if any can show me that either England or France rejected the Canons, which allow burning of Cities for some Heretics in them; I will confess it is something more pertinent, yet does not prove the purpose for which it is brought in the Objection. For though England and France had not received that Doctrine, yet it might justly be imputed to the Church of Rome. Sure I am, that he who reads the French Historians, Matthew Paris, and some of our own Popish Historians, will find more Cities burnt in France, (or by open War Sacked and Ruined) upon this account of having Heretics in them (the poor Waldenses,) than in all Europe besides.  
I am Sir, Your affectionate Friend and Servant. T. L.   

A Letter of Gratian's, falsifying the passage out of Cyprian in the Canon Law, to induce the Burning of Heretical Cities, etc.  
SIR,  
1. FOR Cyprian, he was Archbishop of Carthage, and Primate of Africa, and Anno Christi 
(a) Phil. Labbe Jesuita de scriptoribus Ecclesiast. in Cypriano. Tom. 1. pag. 237.  248. was was Consecrated, and Anno 258. suffered Martyrdom, as a great promoter and Patron of Christianity, and because he would not be an Idolater and Worship the Roman Pagan Gods. He suffered on the 14th of September, and on that day, the memory of his Martyrdom is Celebrated in all our 
(b) Martyrologio Romano, Vsuardi, Bedae Adonis, etc.  Martyrologies. 2. Whereas you ask whether he was an Anabaptist?  
1. It is beyond all doubt, that both he (and a whole Council with him) was earnest for Baptising Infants, as is evident in many of his Epistles, especially that of him, and 66 Bishops with him, about Baptising 
(c) Cyprian Epist. 59 ad Fide de I●fantibus baptizandis. pag. 163. in editione Goula●tii.  Infants. 2. He and the African Bishops with him, were for Rebaptising those who were Baptised by Heretics; because they thought, and Synodically declared, that Heretics could not give true Baptism, but that the Baptism given by Heretics, was a nullity, and no Baptism at all; and therefore the Baptising of such, as had been Baptised by Heretics, was no Rebaptisation, because that of Heretics was a nullity, and indeed no true Baptism.  
4. Lastly, when you ask whether Cyprian be pertinently cited by Gratian, Can. si audieris. Caus. 23. Quest. 5. It is certain, that Gratian in citing Cyprian, betrays his great ignorance, (if he understood not Cyprian s plain Latin,) or his knavery, (if he did understand him,) or both, as many times he does. For it is evident, that the place in Cyprian, does not prove what Gratian proposes: That a whole City, now under the Gospel, may be burnt for a few Heretics. For it is evident,  
1. Cyprian's design is to encourage all good Christians rather to suffer Martyrdom, than to commit Idolatry, by Worshipping other Gods. For that is the Title and Subject of the Epistle, De Exhortatione Martyrii.  
2. In order to this, he shows God's great hatred, and severe punishing of Idolatry. 1. From a place in 
(a) Deut. 13.6.  Deuteronomy: But this making nothing for his purpose, he wisely leaves it out of his Canon. 2. Cyprian citys another place in the same 
(b) Deut. 13.12, 13.  Chapter; the words in the Text are these: If thou shalt hear say, in one of thy Cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee; certain Men, the Children of Belial, are gone from among us, and have withdrawn THE INHABITANTS of their City to serve other Gods, etc. In which words, it is to be considered. 1. That this severe Law concerned only the Cities of Israel; 'tis in the Text, one of THY CITIES, which the Lord thy God hath GIVEN THEE: As the Law, under that penalty, was given only to the Jews in Canaan, so it concerned them only, not any other People of other Countries.  
2. 'Tis in the Text; withdraw the Inhabitants of that City, (these words Gratian leaves out;) now the words are indefinite, and may mean All the Inhabitants; and then 'tis evidently just to kill them all: And it is in Cyprian, etiam si universa civitas consenserit ad Idololatriam.  
3. But if the Major part be not indeed meant, than the 
(c) See Ainsworth 's excellent Commentary on Deut. 13. v. 12.13.  Jews Doctors say, that if a Major part of the City be drawn to Idolatry, than that major part shall be slain, and the City be burnt. But if the Minor part only be drawn to Idolatry, than they say, That the Minor part shall be slain, but the City shall not be burnt. This the Jewish Doctors, (who understood the Text much better than Gratian, or John Semeca his Glossator) took to be the meaning of the Text, and not only they, but Learned Christians too.  
4. Cyprian having shown how great a Sin Idolatry was, and how hateful to God; he adds, Si ante adventum Christi, circa Deum colendum & Idola spernenda haec praecepta servata sunt, quanto magis post adventum Christi servanda sunt? Now the Mosaical Precepts are either De Officiis, or de Paenis.  
1. De Officiis, such as concern our duty to God and our Neighbour; and of these Moral Precepts Cyprian says, that if they were observed before Christ, then, quanto magis post adventum Christi; who had (in his 
(a) Mat. ch. 5. and 6.  Sermon on the Mount) fully explained, and given us the true meaning of them: for the clearer understanding of any Laws, does induce a stronger obligation; and hence it is, that Cyprian thinks truly, that Christians were more strictly obliged to observe the Moral Law, than the Jews were.  
2. But the Law De paenis & suppliciis, Cyprian does not at all mention, nor in that place intent or mean. For Christians are not bound to inflict the same punishments on the Transgressor's of the Law, to which the Jews (by the Mosaical Law) were bound. For to the Jews, 
(b) Levit. 20.10.  Adultery, or breach of the 
(b) Exod. 31.14.  Sabbath were Capital Crimes; but not so amongst Christians. 
(c) Exod. 22.1.  Theft was not Capital, by Moses his Law, and yet by the Law of England it is Capital. By the Jews Law it was, an 
(d) Exod. 21.24.  Eye for an Eye, and a Tooth for a Tooth, but our blessed 
(e) Math. 5.38, 39  Saviour declares against that severity, as not to be used amongst Christians. Now Gratian, (with great ignorance or knavery, or both) would have Cyprian understood de Paenis, and would (against the sense of Cyprian and truth) conclude, that because Idolatry was by the Jews Law punished by death; therefore it should be so punished since Christ under the Gospel.  
5. Once more, Gratian concluded his quotation out of Cyprian with these words, Si ante adventum Christi, haec praecepta servata sunt▪ quanto magis post adventum servanda sunt, quando ille veniens, non verbis tantum nos hortatus est, sed & factis. By which words, he would prove, that our blessed Saviour did both by his words and deeds exhort us to kill Heretics. Whereas,  
1. There is not one word in Cyprian, or the Texts of Scripture he citys, which any way concerns Heretics or Heresy, but only concerning Idolaters, and Idolatry, which are things of a far different nature.  
2. Had Gratian considered and understood what immediately follows there in Cyprian, (which he cunningly and knavishly leaves out) he might have clearly seen that Cyprian neither said, nor meant, that our blessed Saviour did by deeds and words exhort to kill Heretics; but that which Cyprian truly says, our blessed Saviour did by words and deeds exhort to, was, that Christians should patiently suffer and (by no means) renounce the Gospel, by serving Idols and Idolatry, For after these words, (with which Gratian ends his Canon) Christus veniens, non verbis tantum nos hortatus est, sed factis, (there should be only a comma after factis, though Gratian does make a full point, as if it concluded the sentence:) It immediately follows in Cyprian thus— Non verbis tantum nos hortatus sit, sed & factis, post omnes injurias & contumelias passus & crucifixus, ut nos PATI ET MORI EXEMPLOSVO DOCERET, ut nulla sit homini excusatio PRO SE (pro Christo) non patienti, cum ILLE passus sit PRO NOBIS, etc. That which Cyprian says Christ taught us with words and deeds, was not that we should kill Heretics (as Gratian would have it;) but that we should willingly suffer in defence of the Gospel against Idolaters  
And it is a signal place to this purpose; where our blessed Saviour himself tells us, That when the Samaritans would not receive him, (who were Heretics and Idolaters too,) and James and John would have had Fire from Heaven to consume them; our blessed Saviour rebuked them, and said 
(a) Luc. 9.5.  That the Son of Man was not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.  
How his pretended Vicar, and his Canonists will justify their Murdering Heretics, and Burning their Cities, Ipsi viderint.  
One place (I confess) they have in the Epistle to Titus▪ which (if the ridiculous Monk may interpret it) will do their business. This place is Titus 3.10. where the words in their vulgar Latin being these; Haereticum devita, (which we render Reject, or avoid an Heretic.) But the honest Monk (who understood no Greek, and little Latin) by making two words of one, proves from that Text, that Heretics must be killed; For (says he) it must be read thus; Haereticum de Vita tolle, etc.  
I am, Sir, Your affectionate Friend, and faithful Servant, T. L.   

A Letter to the Earl of Anglesey, of the Council of Trent, not being received in France.  
Right Honourable and my very good Lord.  
I Understand by a Letter from my Ancient and Worthy Friend Sir Peter Pett, that your Lordship (who may command) desires me to give you satisfaction, as to this Question— Whether the Trent Council be received in France. And though I dare not undertake to give your Lordship satisfaction, yet (in obedience to your Lordship's Command) I shall venture to say a few things: My great Age and Infirmities, and my little time, disabling me to say more.  
I say then,  
1. That Father Paul of Venice (that great Scholar and Statesman) who had intimate familiarity with the most eminent French Statesmen and Scholars, (both at Venice and Paris;) Father Paul, I say, tells us in 
(a) Vide Interdicti Veneti Historiam, per Paulum Sarpium pas. 4. & 58.  Print; That the Trent Council was not received in France in the Year 1616.  
2. The famous Peter de Marca, Archbishop of Paris, 
(b) Marca de Concordia Sacerdotii & Imperii. lib. 2. cap. 17. §. 6. pag. 133. Col. 7.  tells us; That in the time the Trent Council sat; when it evidently appeared, that by the Treaty of the Trent Council, the Liberty of the Gallican Church was (in quam 
(c) Pet. de Marca ibidem.  plurimis capitibus) in very many particulars destroyed: The Ambassadors of Henry II. and Charles the IX. left the Synod, being called home by their Kings; (and so did the French Bishops too, (as Father Paul in the Hist. of that Council tells us) and complaining in the Council that the Liberty of the Gallican Church, & regia dignitas erant imminutae, their recess from, and leaving the Council, helped the French Pretences, and was a good reason (as Marca there proves) non admittendae Synodi, why they did not receive the Council.  
3. The same Marca (in the same places) tells us— 
(d) Marca, ibidem. pag. 133. col. 1. Totius cleri Gallicani comventus, Concilii Tridentini promulgationem à Regibus nostris supplicibus libellis postulaverit; ea lege, ut ea capita exciperent, quae libertatibus Ecclesiae adversarentur. Quorum desideriis principes, toto hoc negotio saepe in consilium prudentissimorum relato, se accommodare non potuerunt.  That the whole Clergy of France in their Synods did most frequently petition their Kings, that they would publish and receive the Trent- Council (excepting those things which were repugnant to the Liberties of the Gallican can Church;) yet their Kings (though they consulted the wisest of men about that business) would never grant their Petition, nor publish or receive the Trent Council, with the exception; whence it is evident (if that great Archbishop say true) that the Kings of France would never receive any of the Trent Council, no not that part of it, which was not against the Liberties of their Church, or their King's Regality.  
4. And hence it evidently appears, that the Learned Marca does contradict himself. For in the same 
(e) Pag. 133. Col. 1. Concilii Tridentini Definitiones fidei ad missae sunt, Edicto publico, quod ea de relatum est, Anno 1579.  page and Column, and the two first lines of it, he says; That the Definitions of the Council of Trent, concerning Faith, were admitted in France by a public Edict, Anno 1579. (which must be in the 6th year of Henry the III. of France) and yet he tells us in the same page and Column; That although the whole Clergy of France did most frequently petition their Kings to promulgate, and admit only that part of the Trent Council, which was not against the Liberties of the Gallican Church, (if these Words mean any thing, they must mean the Definitions of Faith, which Marca says, were received by the Edict, 1579.) Yet their Kings would never admit any of it.  
And if their Kings would never admit any of it (though the whole Clergy did petition them to do it) than it was not admitted by any public Edict in the 6th year of Henry the III, that is, in the year 1579.  
5. And that which makes this more certain and evident, that the Trent Council was not received in France, Anno 1579. (which Marca says) appears by Thuanus (a Witness beyond all exception) who assures us, that the Trent Council was not received in France Anno Dom. 1588. (and therefore not in the Year 1579. as Marca saith.) For that Excellent and most Faithful Historian tells us; That at 
(a) Thuanus Hist. Tom. 4. lib. 94. pag. 361. Magno caloris aestu contentio de Tridentina Synodo promulganda, toties agitata, denuorenovata est.  that time, (Anno 1588.) The business of promulging and receiving of the Trent Council in France was earnestly pressed; and though it had been long desired, yet the receiving of it had been always 
(b) Novis difficultatibus subortis, promulgatio Synodi tam diu expetita retardaretur. Ibidem.  hindered.  
And how stoutly the promulgation of it was then opposed, the same Thuanus there tells you.  
But that the French do not now receive the Trent Council, not in rebus fidei, may farther appear.  
6. The whole Clergy of France declare 1. That 
(c) In their Assembly, March 19 1682.  a Council is above the Pope. 2. That he has no power in Temporals in any Prince's Dominions. 3. That he has no power to depose Princes. 4. Nor to absolve Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance. 5. That he is not Infallible: And though the Pope declare by his Bull that all those are 
(d) Bulla data Romae 11 April, 1682. Improbamus, rescindimus, cassamus, etc.  null, yet the French King ratifies 
(e) In an Edict registered in Parliament, 23 Marcb, 1682.  and confirms them all. Now these Five Propositions contradict many things in the Trent Council, which are de fide at Rome.  
7. There is a 
(f) The Acts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy, in the Year 1685, etc. That's the Title of the Book.  Book lately made by the General Assembly of the French Clergy, and presented to the King July 14, 1685. In which Book they cite (in the Margin) their new Trent 
(g) This Trent Creed in most of the Editions of the Trent Council, is at the end of the Council; but in the Edition at Antuerp, 1633. (which is the best) it is in the Body of the Council Sess. 24. pag. 450, 451.  Creed; that is, some part of it. For the last of it they cite is pag. 38. of that Book; and leave out the last part of that Creed; which is contained in these Words— Caetera item omnia, à sacris Canonibus & oecumenicis Conciliis, ac praecipue à sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo tradita, definita & declarata, indubitanter recipio ac profiteor; simulque contraria omnia, & Haereses quascunque ab Ecclesia damnatas, & rejectas, & anathematizatas ego pariter damno, reiicio, & anathematizo: Hanc veram CATAOLICAM FIDEM, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, quam in presenti sponte profiteor, & veraciter teneo, eandem integram, usque ad extremum vitae spiritum constantissime retinere & confiteri, atque abillis quorum cura ad me in munere meo spectabit, teneri, doceri & praedicari, quantum in me est, curaturum. Ego idem, N. spondeo, voveo, juro, etc. These be the Words which the French Clergy leave out, in their Book above mentioned: And great reason they had so to do; for if they admitted this part of the Trent Creed, then good-night to all the Liberties of their Gallican Church For,  
1. By this part of the Trent Creed, they are bound to believe and profess OMNIA à concilio Tridentino traditâ, definita, declarata etc. 'Tis not only matters of Doctrine and definitions of Faith; but OMNIA definita & tradita: And 'tis most certain that the Council intended both matters of Discipline and Doctrine.  
2. In the foresaid words of their Trent Creed, a firm belief is required to be given, OMNIBUS in Conciliis Oecumenicis traditis: And then all their Liberties of the Gallican Church are gone. For their Sanctio pragmatica, (which is the authentic comprehension of them) is damned and abrogated by Leo 
(a) In Bulla data Romae, 14 Cal. Jan. Anno 1526.  X. approbante Concilio; In their General Lateran Council.  
3. By the words of this Creed they are to receive OMNIA in sacris canonibus tradita; and then farewell to all their Gallican Churches Liberties: For their Sanctio pragmatica, is expressly 
(b) Extravagant. communes. lib. 1. Titulo. 9 De Trig. & pace. cap. 1.  damned and abrogated in their Canon-law, by a Bull of Pope Sixtus quartus.  
4. Again, the Words above mentioned, (which the French Clergy left out of their Book) are a part Fidei Catholicae, extra quam non est salus: And therefore, if the French do not receive (as questionless they do not) this part of the Trent Creed; then 'tis evident, they do not receive (what P. de Marca would have us believe) Definitiones fidei Concilii Tridentini.  
Obj. But Sir P. Pett. mentions Cabassatius in his Letter, that the Trent Council was received in France, Anno 16●5.  
Sol. I confess he says, that it was received that year, in Generali convent●s Gallicani Cleri, 
(c) Notitia Conciliorum per Joh. Cabassutium Lugduni Anno 1672. pag. 720.  sub Ludovico. 13. But 1. Father Paul of Venice (a far more credible Author) says it was not received Anno 1616. and so it could not be received Anno 1615. 2. He says it was received that year, a Clero Gallicano sub Ludovico. 13. But he does not say that the King received it, only the Clergy received it. And Pet. de Marca (in the places above quoted) expressly says; That the Clergy very frequently petitioned their Kings to receive that Council, but their Kings (as Marca grants) would never give their consent; without which consent, it could 
(d) Decreta conciliorum legis Vim in Gallia non habent, nisi recepta a clero, & regia authoritate munita. Marca de concord. Sacerd. & Imperii. lib. 2. cap. 17. §. 7. pag. 133.  not be received in France.  
That God Almighty would be graciously pleased to bless your Lordship, your Noble Family and Friends, is (and shall be) the Prayer of  
My Lord, Your Lordship's most Obliged, Thankful, and Faithful Servant, Thomas Lincoln.   

Another Letter, to the same Person of the same Subject.  
Right Honourable, and my very good Lord,  
SInce my last Letter, I have remembered, and found a passage in an excellent French Historian, which will be of signal use; to make it appear, that the Trent Council was never received in France.  
The Historians Name is Barthol. Gramondus: The Title of his Book this— Historiarum Galliae ab Excessu Hen. 4. libri 18. Authore G.B. Gramondo, in sacro Regis Consistorio Senatore, & in Parliamento Tolosano Praeside: Tolosae, 1643.  
In this Book Gramondus tells us, that in the 
(a) pag. 57  Year, 1615. (the year in which Cressie, out of Cabassutius, says the Clergy received the Trent Council;) There was a Convention of the three Estates. In which the receiving and Promulgation of the Trent Council was 
(b) Proposita a clero Concilii Tridentini promulgatio; & molliendae invidiae, adjecta est haec Clausala: Sine praejudicio Coronae Regiae, & libertatum Gallican e Ecclesiae, etc. pag. 57, 58.  proposed by the Clergy; and to mollify the matter, and make it pass more easily, they added this Clause; That the Council might be received only so far, as it was not prejudicial to the King's Royal Crown and dignity, and the liberties of the Gallican Church. The Clergy were zealous for it to pass; and (as Gramondus says) Cardinal Perron spoke elegantly, and learnedly for it. After long debate about the reception of that Council, (especially between the Clergy and the third Estate) the Issue was; That the third Estate carried it against the Clergy; and the reception, and promulgation of the Trent Council, was absolutely rejected; 
(c) pag. 69.  Praevaluitque Clero populus, says Gramondus, who yet (as appears by his words in the same, 69. page) that it might have been received, with that Clause which was added.  
Where it is evident,  
1. That when 
(d) Notitia Conciliorum pag. 720.  Cabassutius, names only a 
(e) Anno 1615. in general conventu Gallicani Cleri Ibidem pag. 720.  Convention of the Clergy, in that Year, 1615. (as though that had been all;) yet it was Conventus trium regni Ordinum, a Convention of the three Estates, which is the greatest and Supreme Convention of France, (equal to our Parliament,) as is certain and in Gramondus 
(f) pag. 58. etc.  evident.  
2. When Cabassutius says, the Trent Council was received in that general Convention of the Gallican Clergy; De Marca Archbishop of Paris (a person of far more Learning and Authority, than that pitiful Monk) says, and evidently proves, that no such Convention of the Gallican Clergy, had any Authority to receive, or Promulgate the Trent Council; (or any other Council;) they might approve and (as they did) desire the reception of that Council, but receive it they could not.  
3. Lastly, it was so far from being received (as Cabassutius dreams) by the Convention of the French Clergy, that it was absolutely rejected, by the supreme Convention of the three Estates, and that after a long and free debate.  
It is true, and (from the best Historians) notoriously known, that not only in France, but in England (while Popery prevailed here) the Clergy were generally more for advancing the Popes; than maintaining the just Prerogatives of their own Kings, or the Rights of the Laity. Because, as by the Clergies help and assistance, the Pope grew greater, so their Jurisdiction and Revenues were increased by the Pope: So Anselm and Beckett were zealous for the Pope, and very Disobedient (if not Traitorous) to their King; therefore the Pope assists them with his Power and Favours while they live, and Canonizes', and makes them (what their virtues could not) Saints after their Death.  
That God Almighty would be graciously pleased to bless your Lordship, your Noble Family, and your Friends, is the Prayer of,  
My Lord, Your Lordship's most obliged, thankful, and faithful Servant. Thomas Lincoln.   

September, 1677. Received from the Bishop in a Letter, an account of the Numbers of the Conformists, Nonconformists, Papists; of the Age of Communicants: with the Proportions of their Numbers, to one another in the several Dioceses, in the Province of Canterbury (which Survey of their Numbers, was taken by the Bishops, in the Year, 1676. by direction from His Majesty King Charles the Second) together with the nine Paragraphs of Remarks, made by some employed in the Survey.  
IN the taking of this Survey, or account, we find these things remarkable.  
1. That many left the Church on the late indulgence, who before did frequent it.  
2. The sending forth these inquiries, hath caused many to frequent the Church.  
3. That they are Walloons chief, who make up the Number of Dissenters, in Canterbury, Sandwich, and Dover.  
4. That the Presbyterians are divided; some of them come sometimes to Church: Therefore such are not wholly Dissenters upon the third Enquiry.  
5. A Considerable part of Dissenters are not of any Sect whatsoever.  
6. Of those who come to Church, very many do not receive the Sacrament.  
7. At Ashford, and at other places, we find a new sort of Heretics; after the Name of Muggleton, a London Taylor; in number Thirty.  
8. The rest of the Dissenters are Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Independants, Quakers, about equal Numbers; only some few Self-willers professedly.  
9 The Heads, and Preachers of the several Factions, are such, as had a great share in the late Rebellion.  

The Number of   Conformists. Non-conf. Papists. Canterbury 59596 6287 142 London 263385 20893 2069 Winchester 15●937 7904 968 Rochester 27886 1752 64 Norwich 168760 7934 671 Lincoln 215077 10001 1244 Ely 30917 1416 14 Chichester 49164 2452 385 Salisbury 103671 4075 548 Exeter 207570 5406 298 Bath and Wells 145464 5856 176 Worcester 37489 1325 719 Coven. and Litch. 155720 5042 1949 Hereford 65942 1076 714 Gloucester 64734 2363 128 Bristol 66200 2200 199 Peterborough 91444 2081 163 Oxford 38812 1122 358 St. David's 68242 2368 217 Landaffe 39248 719 551 Bangor 28016 247 19 St. Asaph 45088 635 275  Total 2123362 93154 11870  93154    11870    2228386    

The proportion of the Numbers of   Nonc. to Conf. as 1. to Papists to Conf. as 1. to Both to Conf. as 1. to Pap. to Non-conf. as 1. to Canter. 9 R. 3013 419 R. 98 9 r. 1735 44 r. 39 London 12. R. 12669 127 R. 622 11 r. 10803 10 r. 201 Winch. 19 R. 761 155 R. 823 17 r. 113 8 r. 160 Roch. 415. R. 1606 445 R. 46 15 r. 646 27 r. 24 Norw. 21. R. 2146 251 R. 339 19 r. 465 11 r. 553 Lincol. 21. R. 5056 172 R. 1109 19 r. 1422 8 r. 49 Ely 21. R. 1181 2208 R. 5 21 r. 887 20 r. 2 Chich. 20. R. 124 129 R. 399 17 r. 935 6 r. 142 Salisb. 25. R. 1796 189 R. 89 22 r. 1964 7 r. 239 Exeter 38. R. 2142 696 R. 162 36 r. 2326 18 r. 42 Bath & Wells 24. R. 4920 826 R. 88 24 r. 696 33 r. 48 Worces. 28. R. 389 52 R. 101 18 r. 697 1 r. 606 Covent. & Lich. 30. R. 4460 79 R. 1749 22 r. 1918 2 r. 1144 Heref. 61. R. 606 92 R. 254 36 r. 2602 1 r. 362 Glocest. 26. R. 296 505 R. 84 25 r. 2449 18 r. 59 Bristol 30. R. 200 332 R. 132 27 r. 1487 11 r. 11 Peterb. 43. R. 1961 591 R. 111 40 r. 1684 12 r. 125 Oxford 34. R. 664 108 R. 148 26 r. 1332 3 r. 48 St. Dau. 28. R. 1938 314 R. 104 26 r. 1032 10 r. 198 Land. 54. R. 422 71 R. 147 30 r. 1148 1 r. 168 Bangor 113. R. 95 1474 R. 10 105 r. 86 13 St. Asa. 71. R. 3 163 R. 263 49 r. 498 2 r. 85  T. 22. R 73974 178 R. 10502 19 r. 1906 7 r. 10064  
It is here thought fit to acquaint the Reader, that the Bishop having sent this Copy of the Survey to Sir P.P. he making enquiry about it among some of the King's Ministers, and among some of the persons employed 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 called, The Zealous and Impartial Protestant: Showing 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 men's multiplying the numbers of Papists beyond all bounds of truth, etc. People are apt to talk of the numbers and strength of Papists, and no doubt design them not any service by it, etc. 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 Archbishop to the several Bishops, and from them to the respective Ministers and Churchwardens in the Province of Canterbury, to inquire 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 Bishoprics. The number of Papists there returned, 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 reckoned; yet for the Papists, they being so few in each Parish, and so notoriously distinguished, as generally they are, the Ministers and Churchwardens 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. Martin's alone I have heard 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 returned 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 fall short of the reputed number in divers other noted places. In one City talked 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 Churchwardens of each Parish, that number was not found to be sixty. And 'tis 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 Gloucester 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 decayed Gentry, and here and there an inconsiderable Countryman, or Tradesman, 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 surprise 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 scattered, and live so distantly from each other, that 'tis 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 balance 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 public 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 observed that in Glamorganshire, Radnor, Brecknock, there is but one Popish Family, viz. the Turbervils. In Carmarthen not one. In Denbighshire but one.  
And it may be worthy the Readers knowledge, that Sir William Petty a great Master of Numbers, and Calculations; having in the late Reign of King James, enquired from some of his R. C. Bishops', what Numbers of Children they had Confirmed throughout the Kingdom; gave his judgement that all the Papists in England, Men Women and Children, were but 32000. And that George Fox, in 44 Years, hath made more Quakers five times, than the Pope of Rome, and all his Jesuits and other Emissaries have made Papists.  
But as to the defectiveness of that Survey, as to the Non-conformists; the following Memorial was given by Sir P. P. to one of King James' Ministers: viz.  
Whereas in the Survey of t●e Numbers of several Religionary Persuasions, within the Province of Canterbury, above the Age of Sixteen, returned in the Year, 1676. the Total of the Nonconformists there returned, was 93154. (and consequently the Nonconformists, under the Age of Sixteen, doubling the aforesaid Number there, made the Total of all the Nonconformists there to be but 186308.) The defectiveness of the said Survey does most plainly appear, by the instance of the short return there, as to the Diocese of London.  
For that Survey making the Conformists, above the Age of Sixteen in that Diocese, to be 263385, and the Nonconformists there under that Age, to be 20893. and the Papists there, under that Age, to be 2069; makes by doubling that Total, with those under the Age of Sixteen Years, to be but 286347.  
Whereas Sir William Petty, by his late Printed Calculations, hath made the Number of the People of London to be in all, 696360.  
But the Diocese of London, taking in all the other places in Middlesex, that are without the Bills of Mortality; and taking in likewise all Essex, and part of Darthfortshire; it appears thereby, how extremely defective the return of the Total for the Diocese of London was. For the County of Essex, bearing a two and twentieth part of the Taxes of this Kingdom; and supposing the whole Kingdom to have but 7000000. the Number of People in Essex at that rate will be, 318181.  
And in Fine, as I have in another Paper set down the Total of the Burials, and Christen, for the Year, 1686; the Registered Christen, being near one Third part less than the Burials; it may be thence inferred that near a Third part that Year were Nonconformists, and so if we should Account the People then within the Bills of Mortality to have been but 600000, the Nonconformists there then were about 200000.  
The Reason of this Calculation of a third part, being then within the Bills of Mortality Nonconformists is, that the Christen do there in common Years, reverâ exceed the Burials; the which appears out of the Amsterdam, and Paris Bills of Mortality; and where Christen are carefully Registered. But within the London Bills, the Christen of Nonconformists Children are not Registered.   

SIR, P. Pett, judging it might tend to the public benefit of Mankind, to have the Lord Secretary falkland's Works Published together in one Volume in Folio; wrote to the late Bishop of Lincoln, a large Letter acquainting his Lordship with his design about the same: and that in his Lordship's Life, to be writ before the Book, he intended a short Relation of some Memoirs, wherein the Lord falkland's great Wit, and Moral Perfections were Conspicuous: And with the materials of which he was supplied in Discourse, from the Lord Chief Justice Vaughan, Mr. Robert boil, and the Lady Ranalagh his Sister; and Mr. Abraham Cow and Mr. Edmund Waller; who all had the Honour of his Friendship and frequent Conversation. The two latter Persons having Celebrated his Lordship's worth in their Immortal Poems; and Sir P. told the Bishop he intended to Print their Verses before his Works.  
And Sir P. Considering, that the Bishop had often mentioned to him his frequent Conversation with my Lord Falkland, at his House at Tew; he thought fit to engage the Bishop, to furnish him with some materials of Facts, relating to his Lordship, that might be worthy of the knowledge of the World.  
Sir P. further mentioned it in his Letter to the Bishop, that beside the great Learning, Reasons and Judgement, expessed in my Lord falkland's Printed Writings; there is an incomparable happy mixture of so much of that Great, Beautiful, Charming thing, called Wit; that the measures of Decorum would admit no more, according to that known saying of Mr. Cowley, in his Ode of Wit, Rather than all be Wit (i. e. in writings) let none be there: And therefore Sir P. thought that the publication of that Lords writings would be serviceable to future Writers, as a standard for their measures to be governed by. Sir P. further took notice in his Letter with what great Honour to my Lord falkland's Memory, Mr. Marvel in p. 387. of the second part of his Rehearsal Transprosed, refers to two of his Lordship's Speeches, in the Long Parliament; the first whereof concerning Episcopacy (he saith) gins thus; He is a great stranger in Israel, who knoweth not, etc. and the other at the delivery of the Articles against my Lord Keeper.  
And Sir P. further observed, how in the Printed Papers that passed between the late Earl of Clarendon, and Serenus Cressy, both the Antagonists agreed in their Celebrations of my Lord falkland's, and how that Earl in p. 185. of his Animadversions, on Cressys Book against Dr. Stillingfleet, mentions the Lord Falkland to be a Nobleman of most prodigious Learning; of the most exemplary manners, and singular good nature, of the most unblemished integrity; and the greatest O nament of the Nation, that any Age hath produced.  
Whereupon the Bishop returned him the following Answer, and which he concludes with, bearing his Testimony, (as I may say) to some former writers of Loyalty.   

My Ancient and good Friend,  
I Have received yours, and am very glad to hear (by any hand, especially your own) of your health, which I pray God continue to his glory, your Country's good, and the comfort of your Friends: I return my thanks for your long Letter, though (being yours) it did not seem so to me: You are pleased to inquire after many Books, and their Authors, and require me to give you my Judgement and Character of both. For my Judgement, (quod so●o quam sit exiguum) I shall freely give you my Opinion, sine ostentatione aut odio partium.  
And here first, it seems that you are about publishing my Lord Viscount Falkland's Life and Writings; I have none save what are published and in Print.  
For his Person, you do (and truly) suppose that I was acquainted with his Lordship in Oxford, when he was Secretary to his Majesty Charles I. and you think that I may say something to his Honour.  
Really, Sir Peter, I had the honour to be acquainted with that Illustrious person, and did, and do know that both his natural and acquired parts were exceeding great; he was (even in those ●●b●llio●s times) a Loyal Subject and faithful Servant to his Prince, and a true Son of the Church of England, etc. So that the commendation I can give him, (although it be great) will be iutra laudem, sed infra meritum  
The old saying is still true, Cicerone opus est, ut dignè laudetur Cicero. I shall only name two passages, which concern my Lord, which show his ingenuity and Learning.  
Being with my Lord in Oxford, some time after Dr. Hoyle was by the Rebellious Parliament invited out of Ireland, and by them designed Regius Professor of Divinity, (it seems that we had not then amongst all our English Dissenters, any one who durst undertake that Office, although it was (both for dignity and revenue) very considerable.) Now Dr. Hoyle (a known Rebel and Presbyterian) being so exceedingly magnified in all our Mercuries and News-Books for a most Learned Divine, I asked my Lord whether Dr. Hoyle was a person of such great parts as was pretended? My good Lord presently told us, (only Dr. Morly (since Bishop of Winton) and myself were present,) That he very well knew Dr. Hoyle in Dublin, and had him many times at his Table, and that he was a person of some few weak parts, but of very many strong infirmities. This Character which my Lord gave of Dr. Hoyle, is (like himself) very ingenious, and the University did find it true.  
Another thing concerning that very ingenious and Learned Lord (and very well known to me and many others) was this; When Mr. Chillingworth undertook the Defence of Dr. Potter's Book against the Jesuit, he was almost continually at Tew with my Lord, examining the Reasons of both Parties, pro and con, and their invalidity or consequence, where Mr. Chillingworth had the benefit of my Lord's Company, and his good Library. The benefit he had by my Lord's Company, and rational Discourse, was very great, as Mr. Chillingworth would modestly and truly confess. But his Library, which was well furnished with choice Books (I have several times been in it, and seen them) such as Mr. Chillingworth neither had, nor ever heard of many of them, till my Lord showed him the Books and the passages in them, which were significant and pertinent to the purpose. So that it is certain that most of those Ancient Authorities which Mr. Chillingworth makes use of, he owes, first to my Lord of Falkland s Learning, that he could give him so good directions; and next to his civility and kindness, that he would direct him.  
But no more of this.  
You desire to know some more Authors, who in the War between Charles the I. and the Parliament, writ for the King; you name Dudley Diggs, Dr. Ferne, Dr. Hammond, (and you might have named many more,) all Ingenuous and Loyal persons, and my Friends and Acquaintance; but I do not think their Reasons so cogent, or their Authority so great, that we may safely rely upon them.  
I shall rather commend unto you two Writers on this subject, both of them of great Authority, and in several respects, of greater Judgement; I mean,  
1. Archbishop Usher, whose judgement in Antiquity is far greater.  
2. My Predecessor Bishop Sanderson, the best and most rational Casuist ever England had, whose judgement will be confessed far greater.  
1. First, Archbishop Usher, does expressly and datâ operâ, make it his business, to prove our King's Supremacy in all Civil and Ecclesiastical Causes, against all Popes and Parliaments; and to the same purpose, does (amongst others) cite Bp. Andrews, Hooker, Dr. Saravia; and (which is very considerable) there's a long Preface to the Book of at least 20 pages in Quarto. The Book was published by Dr. Bernard, Bishop Usher's Chaplain, Anno 1661. and Printed at London, and Sold by Richard Mariott in St. Dunstan's Churchyard in Fleetstreet. The Title of the Book is this, Clavi Trabales, confirming the King's Supremacy, and the Subjects Duty, etc.  
2. This second Author I mention, was Dr. Sanderson Bishop of Lincoln, in his Tracts 1. De solemni Ligâ & Foedere. 2. De Juramento Negativo. 3. De Ordinationibus Parliamenti circa disciplinam & cultum. And that which adds honour and weight to these Tracts is this, that although Dr. Sanderson (then Regius Professor of Divinity) composed them, yet they contain not his judgement, but the judgement of the whole University of Oxford; for it is called in the Title page, Judicium Vniversitatis Oxoniensis, in plena Convocatione Communibus suffragijs, nemine contradicente, promulgatum, 1 Junii, 1647.  
In the last and best Edition, (besides the 3. Tracts above mentioned) you have his excellent Prelections, 1. De Obligatione Juramenti promissorii. 2. De obligatione conscientiae. The last and best Edition I above mentioned, was at London, Anno 1671. By Richard Royston in St. Paul's Churchyard.  
For answering your other Questions, I must (as poor men do) crave some more time. The Circumstances I am in, and the very many public businesses which at this time trouble me, did disable me to return to you a speedier answer, with my thanks for your kind Letter. I beg your pardon for the rude Scribble: and my great Age, (Anno 85. currente) and the Infirmities which accompany it considered, I hope your goodness will grant it.  
I shall only add; that God Almighty would be graciously pleased to bless you and your Studies, is the Prayer of  
Your Affectionate Friend and Servant. Thomas Lincoln.   

The Substance of a Letter Written by Dr. Barlow, late Lord Bishop of Lincoln, to Mr. Isaac Walton, upon his design of Writing the Life of his Predecessor Bishop Sanderson.  
AFTER he has Congratulated Mr. Walton, upon his design to write the Life of Bishop Sanderson; and that upon two accounts, viz. Because he was satisfied both of his ability to know, and his Integrity to write Truth: And that he was no less assured, that the Life of that Prelate would afford him matter enough both for his commendation, and for the Imitation of Posterity; He next proceeds to gratify his desires in assisting him towards the said intended Work, with the Communication of such particular passages of that Prelate's Life, as were certainly known to him; and gives him a short Narration, of which this is the substance.  
First, he professes he had known him about twenty Years, and that in Oxford he had enjoyed his Conversation, and Learned and Pious Instructions, when he was Royal Professor of Divinity in that University; and that after he was by the cross events that happened in the Civil Wars, in the time of King Charles the First, forced to retire into the Country, he had the benefit of conversing with him by Letters; wherein with great candour and affection, he answered all doubts he proposed to him, and gave him more satisfaction than he ever had, or expected from others.  
But to proceed to particulars, he further says, that having happened in one of his Letters to the said Dr. Sanderson, to mention two or three Books Written professedly against the being of Original Sin; and asserting, that Adam by his fall, transmitted no Sin, but some miseries and calamities only to his posterity: The Good Old Man, was extremely troubled at it, and bewailing the miserable effects of those licentious times seemed to worder, (but that a second Consideration of the times he then was in, abated something of his surprise,) how any should Write, or at least be suffered to publish an Error so contrary to truth, and to the Doctrine of the Church of England, firmly grounded, (as he justly affirmed) upon the clear Evidence of Scripture, and Established by the Lawful Supreme Authority, both Sacred and Civil of this Nation: But our Prelate names not the Books, nor their Authors; but rather wishes neither of them had been ever known: and he adds, both the Doctrine, and the unadvised Abettors of it are, and shall be, to me Apocryphal.  
Next, for the proof of the Doctor's Piety, and great Ability, and Judgement in Casuistical Divinity; he inserts this Story: viz. That he the said Dr. Barlow, Discoursing with an Honourable Person, who was as Pious, and Learned, as Noble (which we are informed was the late Renowned Rob. boil Esq;) about a Case of Conscience, relating to Oaths, and Vows, and their Nature and Obligation; and in which for some particular Reasons, the said Mr. Boil desired at that time more fully to be instructed; and having referred him for that point to Dr. Sandersons' Book de Juramento; He accordingly perused it with great content: which done, he asked Dr. Bar●ow, whether he thought Dr. Sanderson might not be persuaded to write Cases of Conscience; if he might have an Honorary Pension, and a convenient supply of Books; to enable him to go through that task: to which our Author replied, he thought he would; and accordingly in a Letter to Dr. Sanderson, after he had told him what satisfaction that Honourable Person, and many others had found by his Book de Juramento, started the Proposal to him; whether he would for the Church's Benefit, writ some more Tracts of Cases of Conscience? to which he replied, he was glad his Works had done any good; and that if he thought any thing else he could do, would so much benefit any body, as 'twas affirmed that his former had done, he would presently go about the Work, though without a Pension: That upon this Answer, the said Honourable Person, sent 50 l. to the said Doctor, by Dr. Barlows hands, as knowing him to be then but in a low Condition: and that soon after, he Revised, finished, and Published his Book of Conscience, little, says our Author, in Bulk, but not in the benefit an understanding Reader may reap by it; there being so many general propositions, about Conscience, and its Nature, and Obligation laid open; and made good there with such forcible Evidence of Reason, that he who Reads, Retains, and can with Discretion apply them; with respect to due time and place, to particular Cases; may by their light, very Reasonably resolve a Multitude of Doubts and Scruples of Conscience.  
After this, he produces an Instance of the said Dr. Sanderson's Judgement, concerning a Passage very pertinent, as he says, to his present purpose which he thus relates: When the said Dr. acted as Royal Professor of Divinity in Oxford, and in performing his public Lectures in the Schools, gave great content to his Auditors, by the truth of his Positions; and uncommon Evidence, and clearness of his Proofs; and especially in the Resolution of all Casuistical Doubts, that occurred in the explication of the matter of his Subject. A Person of Quality still living, privately asked him, What method was best for a young Divine to take, to make himself an able Casuist? To which he replied, That presupposing this young Student to be already furnished with a sufficient Knowledge of the Arts and Sciences; and a convenient Understanding at least of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew: There were two things more in Humane Learning, the understanding of which would much conduce to make a man a rational and able Casuist; which otherwise would be very hard, if not impracticable: Which were  
1. A competent Knowledge of Moral Philosophy, and particularly of that part of it that treats of Human Actions, and teaches us to distinguish, What a Human-Act is? (Spontaneous, Involuntary, and mixed;) from whence Human-Acts derive their Moral Goodness or Badness? viz. Whether from their Genus and Object, or from their Circumstances? And how the Goodness or Evil of Human Acts, is varied by the difference of Circumstances? How far Ignorance or Knowledge may augment or abate the good or evil of the same Actions? Because that all Cases of Conscience including only these Questions, viz. Is this Action good or evil? Is it lawful to do it, or not? He who knows not how, nor whence Human Actions became morally good or evil, can never reasonably and certainly determine, whether any particular Action, about which he shall be questioned, be so or no.  
And the second thing, which he said, would be of mighty advantage to a Casuist, was a Competent Knowledge of the Nature and obligation of Laws in general'; viz. to know, what a Law is, what a Natural, and what a Positive Law; what is necessary for the Authentic passing of a Law, to a Dispensation with it, and likewise to its Repeal and Abrogation? What publication, or promulgation is requisite to give any positive Law the Force of obliging, and what kind of Ignorance takes off that Obligation; or aggravates, excuses, or diminishes the guilt of the transgression of any Law? For all Cases of Conscience, as is above said, including only, Is this thing Lawful, or not? And the Law, the only Rule by which we can judge of the Lawfulness and unlawfulness of any thing; it must needs follow, that he who (in these) is ignorant of the Laws, and of their Nature and Obligation, can never reasonably assure himself, or any Querist, of the Lawfulness, or unlawfulness of any Actions in particular. This was the Judgement and Advice of that Pious and Learned Prelate; the truth and benefit of which, our Reverend Author, and his Worthy Successor, having by a long and happy Experience found, he tells his Friend, That he thought he could not without Ingratitude to him, and want of Charity to others, conceal it. And so with a Compliment of Modesty he concludes his Letter; which is dated,  
London, May the 10th. 1678.   

A Letter giving an account of the Bishop and his Clergies Address to K. James.  
Sir,  
I Received yours, and (with my Love and Service) return my thanks. For our Address (which you mention) many of the Clergy have been solicited by Letters from your great Town, that they should not Subscribe it; and I have had two or three Letters sent me incognito, no name subscribed to these Letters, wherein they Zealously declaim against that Address, and all Subscriptions to it; but do bring nothing like a Reason to prove that such Subscriptions are either unlawful, or (Circumstances considered) imprudent, or inconvenient. I was lately informed (by a Person of Quality from London) that they report in your great Town, that the Bishop of Lincoln had indeed Subscribed the Address, but his Clergy refused to Subscribe.  
But the truth is; that beside myself, 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 Majesty's gracious Promise to protect the Church of England as by Law established, is such. (especially from a Roman Catholic Prince) as deserves the utmost of our thanks and gratitude, and most worthy to be acknowledged, 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 confirmed by Act of Parliament? I answer, that they are not, but only by the King, and my Lord Archbishop Laud, than our Chancellor.  
2. To the second Query, whether our Chancellor 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 allowed, 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 obeyed) 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 forbidden 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 Query, 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 confirmed by Act of Parliament.  
For your last Query; Whether Colleges have some Charters from the Crown to confirm their Founder's 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 judgement 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 Gloucester, 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, etc. 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 reformed Christianity, settled in its due latitude, is the stability and advancement of this Kingdom.  
The Letter likewise mentioned 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 outrageous extravagance of Dr. Cheynel; and as to which the Bishop returned the following Answer, viz.   

SIR,  
I Received yours, and in the very troublesome Circumstances I now am, (my Love and Service remembered) I shall give you a short answer to your particular demands in your Letter.  
1. For Mr. Chillingworth, none ever questioned this Loyalty to his King; what Corbet (in his Book you mention) writes of him, that he was in the Siege of Gloucester 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 Commanders there. And further I know, that he died 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 Lunatic, and distracted, and spoke evil things; several of such his wild Say 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 Licence at Lambeth. I have a Tract finished 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 than 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 had of Antiquity, (Sacred or Civil,) of Councils and Fathers, or Learned men's Animadversions upon them; nor in any great Skill he had in several Tongues and Languages, etc.  
But his Excellency wherein he excelled many (if not most) Writers, did arise from, and consist in his Logic, both natural; and (by exceeding great industry) acquired.  
Natural Logic I call that natural Ability, which all men (except Lunatics and Mad Men) have to argue rationally, and prove conclusions from Principles better known to them. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ratio, and whosoever argues so, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Logician. Thus all Men, (even the poorest Country People, (who have no Learning, Latin, nor any Language but their own) have a Natural Logic; and of this Natural Logic our blessed Saviour 
(a) Math. 16.23.  speaks to the Jews, and approves it. But that Logic in which Mr. Chillingworth's excellency did principally consist, was his acquired Logic; he industriously Studied it, finding the exceeding great use of it, especially in Controversies of Religion. Logic (and that only) makes a Man to write so, that his Arguments shall be, 1. Consequent, 2. Evident: For that (and that only) enables a Writer really to know, whether the premises do indeed infer the Conclusion; or otherwise are false, or fallacious, and Sophistical, and not truly Logical and concluding Arguments: And for this, Mr. Chillingworth, (after an industrious and diligent reading Aristotle's and Crakanthorp's Logic, who were best able to instruct him) was of greater ability to judge truly, than most (if not all) the Writers I have yet met with.  
Besides, Mr. Chillingworth in all his Disputes against Popery, draws his Arguments not from Fathers or Councils, (though in several things they may be of good use, though they be not Infallible) but from the Sacred Scriptures; which being of Divine Authority, and Infallible, are a sure and just ground of that confidence we are speaking of.  
For the second thing above mentioned, to wit Evidence; it is to be considered that Method is a part of Logic, and by it any Writing may become evident, if the propositions be placed in that Method and Order of Nature in th● Writings, which they have one to another in relation to themselves; that so that Proposition or Medium be placed first, which in its own Nature is first, and that second which immediately depends upon it, and so the third, etc. For when Propositions or Mediums are so placed, that their mutual dependence one upon another does appear, this makes the reasons evident; and though orherwise they may be consequent, yet they will be confused and inevident. I have known some Learned Men, who sometime bring Reasons which are indeed consequent, yet for want of a due Method and order of the Mediums and matter of those Reasons, are confused, and inevident, and put the Reader to a great deal of trouble to find out the Consequence. Pardon this rude Scribble; and (as I shall do for you) pray for  
Your Faithful Friend and Servant, Tho. Lincoln.  
POSTSCRIPT.  
I Have seen and read a Letter of yours, to one Mr. Hale, about the Validity of a Marriage between Mr. P. and Mrs. C. wherein you have settled the Question much better (I am sure) than I could have done. Your Reasons and your Learned Quotations from the Law of Nature, and Nations, from the Civil, Canon and our Common Law, I doubt not but they may satisfy those who are concerned in the Case. I am of your Opinion, and long since was so, and now your Letter has confirmed it.   

BIshop Barlow, being so profoundly Learned, both in Divinity, and the Civil, and Canon Law; that he was often applied to, as a Casuist, to resolve Cases of Conscience about Marriage; and his Lordship having been by a Divine of his Diocese, shown Sir P. P's. Letter to Mr. Hale, about the matter of Law and Conscience, in the Case of the Marriage of Mr. P. and Mrs. C. and having shown his Concurrence with Sir P. P's Opinion about it, and his Lordship having so much declared his satisfaction about Sir P. P's. performance in the Resolution of the Case, it is thought fit for the information of others, in Marriage Cases of the like nature that may frequently arise; to set down the following Papers, and which Conclude with the Bishop's further thoughts about the whole matter.   

A Question about the Case of the Marriage, between Mr. C. P. and Mrs. M. C.  
MR. P. the Elder, hired part of Mrs. C's. the Elder's House, having with him two Daughters; one Son, the said C. P. about 18 years of Age: Mrs. C. the Elder had a Daughter about the same Age then from home.  
Mr. P. the Elder, his Daughters having heard much in Commendation of Mrs. M. C. the Younger, desired her Mother to send for her, that they might see her, before they removed; which was intended soon after: whereupon her Mother sent for her, and about a Fortnight before they went, she came home: The Young Gentleman soon discovered a great liking of her, and applied himself very kindly to her, and continued so to do; seeking all opportunities for her Company, and saying many kind things to her, and of her to others; so that the Family took notice thereof.  
The third day following they Danced with his Sisters, and other Young Gentlewomen and Gentlemen, till about two or three in the Morning; (the Old People being all gone to Bed;) the Dancing being over, and one Mr. F. a Divine in Orders, being of their Company; one of the Gentlemen took the Eldest Sister by the hand, and said we have a Parson here, come now let's be Married; so speaking to Mr. F. he began the Matrimonial words, which the Gentleman said after him, but the Lady would not, saying, What do you think I'll have you? Then Mr. P. the Younger taking Mrs. M. C. the Younger by the Hand, said, to F. come Mary us, Mr. F. began the words to him, to wit, Wilt thou have this Woman, etc. and then I P. take thee M. etc. Which Mr. P. said after him; and she also in her turn, with much persuasion said her part, till the Ceremony of the Ring, which they wanted, and then she endeavoured to go from them: the door being open, P. the Younger with the said F. pressed along with her into the Hall (leaving the Sisters entertained by the Gentlemen in the Parlour) and there held her, Mr. P. saying, We'll have it all over again, for now I have got a Ring, (which it seems Mr. F. lent him:) and then Mr. F. said the words of Matrimony again, Mr. P. following; and when it came to her turn, she repeated all after him to the Ring, as before; which Mr. P. put upon her Finger, saying the words after Mr. F. With this Ring I thee Wed, with my body I thee Worship, and with all my Worldly Goods I thee endow; and ending there, Mr. F. clapped his Hand upon his Breast, and said. Now by my Soul, you are as much Man and Wife before God, as any two in England to which Mr. P. replied, I hope so, for so I intended it.  
Afterwards he spoke to two Servant Maids that were by, to get their Bed ready; they not moving, he offered them Money, Swearing she is my Wife, and I will go to Bed to her; and so the next day, and continually as he got opportunity, to speak to the Chambermaid, he several times pressed her to put them to Bed; saying she was his Wife: Once Mrs. C. the Younger being by, she asked her where it should be, she said in Mrs. Ks. Room; so the Maid went up thither, and they followed her; but he was very angry, she had got no Sheets; she could not come at them, her Mistress knowing nothing hereof; and pulled Mrs. M. to him, and as they were laid upon the Bed, the Maid threw the Bed-cloths over them, saying, I think this is putting you to Bed together, and so left them with the Door fast, where they continued about two hours.  
Another time they had Locked themselves into the Study, for about two hours more, where his Sisters at last discovering them, complained to Mrs. M. C's. Mother.  
In fine, he would always get where she was, and alone with her when he could, and perpetually solicited the Chamber Maid to put them to Bed, saying, You know she is my Wife; once promising her a Guinea, another time threatening her if she did not do it.  
The Maid, and one Mrs. M. H. at several times heard him tell Mrs. M. that she was his Wife, and if she Married any one else, he'd Hang her; but she being unwilling to let him lie with her, because he had told her it must be kept secret from his Friends, for a time; which he thinking it proceeded from her doubt that it was not a good Marriage, he sent Mr. F. who came to her in the Folding Room (the said Maid being by) and calling her Madam P. said Mr. P. had desired him to satisfy her that the Marriage was a good Marriage, and that she was his Wife; and he did assure her that the Marriage was good; and afterwards Mr. P. told her himself, that he had desired Mr. F. to satisfy her that the Marriage was good; saying, indeed it was a rash thing; but he was informed it would stand good in Law, and was well satisfied; she answering she had no reason to repent it, if he did not; he replied with an Oath, that he did not, and if she was not fully satisfied, he'd Marry her again.  
There are divers persons of good Credit to whom the next day after the Marriage, Mr. P. said he was Married to Mrs. M. C. and seemed to be very well pleased with it.  
Sometime afterwards, Mrs. M. C. seeing Mr. F. walking with him in the Garden, and talking somewhat earnestly together, when he came in, she asked him what they talked about; he said, about you: Me! said she, what did he say? he said many good things of you, and commended my choice; and other times speaking of the House his Father was Building, would tell her, they little think, You and I must live there.  
Many other things on occasion, Mr. P. said to Mrs. M. C. which perhaps (tho' upon Oath) he may now deny, no body being by; but these Overt Acts, that can be proved by Witnesses, do enough show that Mr. P. was at that time, in good earnest in this matter, and that Mrs. M. C. had all the Reason in the World, to believe him to be so, and that her Marriage was good; though excessive Modesty, or desire to keep the matter as private as she could, for some time, might make her not contrive, or at least hel● forward a more formal and solemn consummation of it: She thinking, the Office repeated was binding enough without i●.  
But Mrs. M●s. Friends (whom she durst not acquaint with her proceed, they often chiding her upon Mr. P's. Sister's complaining of her being so much in their Brother's company) being since better informed of the truth of this matter; they are advised, they ought to prosecute the business, and assert the Legality of this Marriage; which Mr. P's. Friend understanding, they have gained Mr. F. boldly to assert all to be in jest.  
They have by their Servants, been tampering with the Maid also, dissuading her from giving Evidence, telling her, she ll bring herself into a praemunire; what need she meddle? She may say, she knows nothing, etc. and giving her hopes of a good place in their Family.  
Mr. F. after his return from London, being blamed by some of Mrs. Ms. Friends for his Carriage in this matter, said he must do't, fo● if the Marriage should prove good, he should be ruined.  
The Question hereupon is, what may be adviseable in point of Law and Conscience, for Mrs. M. the young Gentlewoman, so Married to Mr. P. to do?  
This Question, with a Paper out of Bishop Tailor's Cases of Conscience, was first sent to Sir P. P. and afterwards to the late Lord Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Thomas Barlow, for their Answers about the same.   

That Paper out of Bishop Taylor was Biretti 's Case, in the Bishop 's Ductor dubitantium, lib. 3. Chap. 1. Rule 4.  
FRrancisco Biretti a Venetian Gent. full of Amours, and used to vain and Wanton Addresses, courts Julia a Senator's Daughter, but with secret intent to abuse her, and so to leave her; Marco Medici the Father of Julia by Threats and harsh Usages forces his Daughter Julia to consent to a Contract with Francisco; who perceiving himself surprised, and that the matter was passed further than he intended it, resolved to make the best of it, to make a Contract to lie with her, and so to leave her.  
He does so, surprises her in the careless Hours of the Day, and the nakedness of her Soul, and with flatteries mingled with the affrightening Name of her harsh Father, acts his Intention, and then pursues it till he was weary of her, and then forsakes her.  
She complains and desires remedy; The Law declares their Congress to be a Marriage: But in the mean time Francisco passed into Sicily, and there married Antonia Peronetta a Sicilian Lady; her he loved, intended to make his Wife, and did so.  
Now the Law presumes that after contract, their congress did declare a Marriage: Cap. Is qui fidem, & Cap. Tuantos, de Sponsal. For it supposes and presumes a consent, and yet withal says, If there was no consent, it was no Marriage; here Francisco is condemned by the presumption, and relieved in conscience; for if he did not lie with her affectu Maritali, but only intended to abuse her, he was indeed extremely impious and unjust; but he made no Marriage: For without mutual consent Marriages are not made.  
Yet because of this the Law could no ways judge but by outward Significations; and ut plurimûm, for the most part it is so, That Contracts and Congress do effect as well as signify a Marriage; the Law did well to declare in behalf of Julia. But Francisco, who knew that which the Law could not know, was bound to make amends to Julia as well as he could; but to pursue the Marriage of Antonia, and dwell with her: For the Presumption upon which this Law was founded, was false, the Congress did not prove a Marriage, for it was never intended; the Presumption is probable, but failed in this Instance; and therefore in this Case did not oblige the Conscience. Conscience is to be guided by presumption, when it hath no better Guide; but when it hath certain Truth to guide it, it is better than the best Presumption, or Probability.   

Sir P. P. Returned his Answer to the Question and other Paper left by Mr. Hale with him, in the following Letter.  
Sir,  
I Herewith return you your Case of the Fact of the Matrimonial Cause you left with me, as likewise the quotation you transcribed out of Bishop Taylor's Ductor dubitantium; you having desired my Opinion of your Case, and my advice about what is fit to be done on the whole matter in your Kinswoman's behalf, be pleased to take the same as follows.  
According to the Common Rule that Consensus facit Nuptias, I doubt not in the least but that if the matters of Fact in the Case be true, the Marriage is a perfect Marriage; that is to say, I doubt not but the parties in the time of the speaking the words of Matrimony, or some time of their intercourse and conversing together since, did by words and Overt Acts express their mutual consent to Marriage; and I believe that any indifferent observer of the course of humane Nature, who shall read over your Case of the Fact, will judge that at some of the times, at least, since the first speaking of the words of Marriage by the Gentleman and your Kinswoman after the Minister, the Gentleman and your Kinswoman were in earnest, and did reverâ consent to the Marriage; and if so, then in the Court of Law and Conscience the measures of judging of the Fact of the mutual consent must be much taken from the Rule that is allowed both in our Common as well as the Civil and Canon-Law, that Omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur & mandato aequiparatur. By means hereof subsequent consent is by all allowed to legitimate a Marriage that was first made by fear and force.  
Tho in many Cases 'tis true, that quod ab initio non valet, tractu temporis non convalescit, yet 'tis as true that Matrimonium vi vel metu initio contractum, per subsequentem ratificationem convalescit, quia tunc praecedens violentia vel justus metus in consensum transit & purgatur: And thus too though Contracts made by a drunken Man are void, yet if a matrimonial Contract made by him in his drink be ratified by him when he is sober, he is not to be absolved from that Contract for the want of consent to it at first: The like is to be said in the Case of a Man who married at first in jest, and afterwards by reiterated acts ratifies his consent to the Marriage.  
In the Case of Biretti referred to in Bishop Taylor's Ductor dubitantium, lib. 3 cap. 1. Rule 4. There is one thing that is properly applicable to the Gentleman's Conscience, and fit upon occasion to be urged to him by those that are the Directors of his Conscience, the which I shall mention by and by. But I could wish he were sensible of some other thoughts of that Bishop expressed in that Work of his, lib. 2. cap. 3. p. 336. where speaking against the Pope's dispensing with a divine positive Law, he saith; If a Man hath vowed to a Woman to Marry her, and contracted himself to her per verba de praesenti, she according to her duty loves him passionately, hath Married her very Soul to him, and her heart is bound up in his, but he changeth his mind, and enters into Religion, but stops at the very gate, and asks who shall warrant him for the breach of his faith and vows to his Spouse? The Pope answers, that he will, & c The Gentleman may hereupon look on it as very unreasonable that he should be allowed to recede from the Marriage with the Gentlewoman upon a Capricio, and considering what your Case mentions of the Gentleman's putting her on the Bed, and causing her to be on the Bed with him two hours with the Bed  thrown over them, and the door locked; I believe the strength of such a presumption extending so far toward Copulation would withhold any Pope from the legitimating a Man's receding from such a Marriage, tho' on the account of his desiring to enter into Religion.  
I have not by me Menochius his large voluminous Work de praesumptionibus, to consider the measures he takes of the efficacy of a Presumption of that kind. But I have now before me a Tractate de jure Connubiorum by Joachimus a Beust, a learned Germane Protestant Lawyer, who there in p. 166. 169. mentions the weight of the Case of a single Man's being found in Bed with a single Woman, and being thereupon by fear and threaten from her kindred compelled to Marry her; and he there citys some Authors who make such Marriage invalid, but then he subjoins what follows, Viz. Sunt tamen qui existimant juvenem in lecto repertum cogi posse matrimonium metu contractum adimplere, per ea quae referuntur in C. inter caetera 22. 9 1. & gl. in c. majores. Item quaeritur in verb. conditionali in Baptis. & quod tradit Dec. in L. velle de Reg. jur. gl. in C. merito 15. 9 2. & Bart in L. Si Mulier. Si metu ff. quoth met. cause. Pro quâ sententiâ adducunt etiam text. Exodi Cap. 22. repetitum in Cap. 1. de adult. de cujus Cap. 1. intellectu, vide Didac in Epitome de Sponsalib. & matrim. part 2. Cap. 6. tuc. 15. Autumant enim ipsi quando contra eum qui ita in lecto repertus esset in uno aut altero casu exemplum Statueretur, quod hâc ratione effraena juventutis libido coerceri possit; neque Stupratori vim aut injuriam sieri, cum hoc quod ipsi accidat ille suâ culpa sentiat, & ideo sibi acceptum serre debeat, L. quodvis de Regul. jur. quod tamen nunc non disputo, sed discretioni judicis in facto contingente discutiendum relinquo.  
I will suppose it possible that on the bed he might have no carnal knowledge of her in all that time: But what the Law doth suppose and presume in such a Case is another thing. On the Laws supposing that two persons found in Bed together have committed Adultery, I have known Penance often enjoined after the only proof of that Circumstance, and without any thing of Carnal knowledge sworn by the Witnesses.  
You told me that a Dignitary of our Church (whose name you acquainted me not with) in Friendship to the Gentleman's Father had been at Doctors-Commons; and there feed one of the Doctors who is a Judge of one of those Courts where Matrimonial Causes are conusable, and obtained his Opinion in Writing that the Marriage as being in jest was void: You said the Divine had the character of one who was very dextrous and prudent and successful in the management of business. But if you think fit to lay the Scene of the Law Suit in that Court, where the party consulted is Judge (as that you may do if you will) you will have no cause to fear want of justice there, when matters of fact come to be rightly stated in the Libel, and backed by proofs.  
Every Proctor's Clerk can tell you that by the Style and constant practice of the Court you will be sure to effect the Gentleman's being examined upon Oath by the Judge himself, as to all the particulars of the Facts you shown me in the Case by you drawn, after your Kinswomans' Proctor hath put them into the Libel; and to effect the Judge his causing him to give a plain full and Categorical answer on Oath as to each particular, and you will be sure to effect the Sequestration of the Gentleman's person into some indifferent place for some days; where being out of his Father's Custody, she or you, or her Proctor will be allowed to go to him, and discourse him privately of past matters, and to read over to him the Facts as laid down in her Libel, and advise him when he comes to be examined upon Oath by the Judge as to them, he would not be aeternae suae salutis immemor. If at his Examination by the Judge he shall confess the matters as laid down in the Libel, there will be no doubt of her obtaining Sentence for the Marriage.  
But on the whole matter, though it should so happen that neither by the young Gentleman's examination by the Judge, nor by the proofs arising from her Witnesses, there could be sufficient ground for the Judge his giving Sentence for the Marriage, (which latter may be feared if Mr. F.— hath been tampered with as your Case mentions) yet if your proof shall extend so far as this, namely, but to a kind of Semiplena probatio, and to what may make impressions on the Judge his belief and private Conscience that the Gentleman did at the Marriage, or some one 〈◊〉 of the Acts of the Ratification of it, reverà intent a consent to the same; and that if Mr. F. had not been tampered with, he would have sworn the truth about the Marriage, and what he knew of the subsequent ratifications of it; though he cannot give Sentence for the Marriage, but shall give Sentence for the Defendant, yet you may expect that he will condemn the Defendant in the Charges made by the Plaintiff; and under the notion of Charges, order her a good round Sum of Money for the damage she sustained by the Defendants means.  
They at Doctors-Commons can tell you how in the famous Marriage Cause between Mrs. Isabel Jones, and Sir Robert Carr in the Arches where Sir Robert was claimed by her for her Husband, tho' for want of full proof of the Marriage Sir Gyles Sweit the Dean of the Arches pronounced Sentence against the Marriage; yet however he condemned Sir Robert Carr in 1500 l. Costs to Mrs. Jones, and from which Sir Robert appealed not, but paid the Mony.  
Sir Gyles was in his Conscience convinced that Sir Robert, and Mrs. Jones had been really married, though by reason of one of the Witnesses to it having been tampered with, the Marriage could not be fully proved by her.  
I can at any time acquaint you with the Circumstances of that Cause, and give you an account of the remarkable Judgements of God inflicted on the Persons who tampered with the Witness in that Cause; whereby the Marriage between Sir Robert Carr and Mrs. Jones failed of Sentence. But one Circumstance of hers I shall not here omit; namely, that she was but a Servant, a Waiting-woman to Sir Robert's Mother,; and your Kinswoman being the Daughter of an , virtuous, and of good Education, her Case is thereby rendered more favourable in the eye of the Law than Mrs. Jones was.  
I know the Rule is, that Victus Victori condemnabitur in expensis: But all Practitioners in the Ecclesiastical Courts know the exception from that Rule, even in Common Causes: Simo just am causam litigandi victus habuerat, and that particularly in Matrimonial Causes ex justâ Causâ litigandi ipse Vincens in expensis Condemnatur, ut si matrimonium allegans sponsalia prohaverit aut tractatum; and other like Circumstaces: And that not only the ordinary expensae litis are here to be allowed, but extraordinary ones.  
I pray God direct your Kinswoman in this her weighty Concern: I doubt not but some of the Clergy, who were her Father's Acquaintance, will not grudge their pains in advising her what to do in point of Conscience. Perhaps after the Citation hath been served on the Gentleman, the result of it may be; that he will not be able to master his Affection to her. If he had forsworn her love, yet may Nature possibly overpower him; and thus according to the old Verse you have met with; Jupiter é Caelis ridet perjuria amantûm,  
I am sorry for the Prospect you have of the great Charge in the Law, shortly after you have entered into the Suit; but I have before mentioned your prospect of this being returned to your Kinswoman again, though Sentence should go against the Marriage. We know the Saying of the Prophet; The liberal man deviseth liberal things, etc. and the hearts of some good men may be inclined according to the Tenor of a London Divine's good practical Discourse, called, Charity Directed, printed in the Year 1676. to afford the Widow and Fatherless, your Kinswomen, their help, whereby they may be enabled the better to bear the Burden of the expenceful Suit at the present. But methinks, if the Father of the young Gentleman (who is a wealthy man) be a man swayed by Principles of Conscience, some wise and sober man of that Persuasion of Religion he professeth, might be found out to apply to him in a friendly serious manner, and discourse to him of the particulars of the Facts mentioned in your Case, whereby he will see how much your Kinswoman hath been damnified by his Son.  
The Case of Biretti before referred to in Bishop tailor's Cases of Conscience, mentions Biretti's being obliged to make a Compensation to the Gentlewoman he first married, without his intending a Consent to the Marriage.  
I know that regularly Compromissum contra matrimonium initum non valet. But if on a Case of the Fact truly stated and laid before Divines, for their consideration, and directing either Party what to do in point of Conscience, thereupon they shall be of opinion that God never joined the Parties; and that the young Gentleman bred at home, and in the Country here in England, having at 18 years of Age equalled Biretti the Italian in the Talents of Dissimulation, after he had inveigled your virtuous 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, intent nothing of consent to Marriage, and did throughout only intent to debauch her; I think a Compensation for your Kinswoman's Damage ought to be made: For according to the Expression used in some Declarations at Common Law, by a Woman suing for Damages there, viz. Per quod Maritagium amisit: Your Kinswoman's being hindered in future Marriage with another person, is obvious to any one's Thoughts; and because the commencing a Suit, and exhibiting her Libel 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 Damages will not be so great before a Suit gins, 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 Diocese, afterward writing to his Lordship, to request his Judgement in point of Conscience, about the Marriage of Mr. P. and Mrs. C. the Bishop under his hand returned 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, expressed 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 myself, or others,) unless I have the Reasons of both Parties concerned; 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 Murder.  
Sir,  
I Have received yours, and for the Objection, Gen. 9.6. He that sheds Man's Blood, by Man shall his blood be shed. I shall say a few things, and leave them to your better judgement 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) Monarches 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 Murder) for killing Abel: and for 
(b) Gen. 4.23.24.  Lamech, we have nothing in Scripture, that he was punished with Death; or that God had then (before the Flood) given any positive Law, to make Murder Capital.  
5. But to Noah, God did by a positive Law, make Death the punishment of Murder, 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 Man's blood, by Man shall his blood be shed: That's the punishment God has appointed for Murder, the Murderers 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 deserved it;) that the Magistrate only had power to do.  
2. Nor could every Murderer be put to Death, by that Law given to Noah, (and so to the World in him;) for if Noah, or any supreme power had committed Murder, 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 aught to punish Murder with Death. But that the supreme power (who could not by that Law, be punished himself) might not in some Cases (all Circumstances considered) pardon a Murderer; 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 pardoned Cain; (as to the punishment by Death;) so there may be, (in some Cases) such Circumstances, which may be just reasons for supreme powers (who are Gods Vice-gerents) to pardon Murder.  
2. Because I find in Scripture, that above 500 years after the giving that Law to Noah, Simeon and Levi, jacob's Sons, cruelly 
(a) Gen. 34.25.  Murdered the Shechemites, and yet were pardoned; 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 believed 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 myself 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 Lincoln.   

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 shows, that the Jesuits are not to be taxed for those Opinions, as though they were the first Authors of them; when many Catholic 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 condemned 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 damned 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 damned Guymenius his Book. For the Words of the Bull are— Nos motu proprio, & ex certa scientia nostra, deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine, prefatam Censuram damnamus, etc. 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 pleased to send me a Copy of the Pope's Letter to the French King; to encourage 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 Pope's 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 enclosed, what I think is evidently true.  
They do believe, and in their Authentic Writings profess, that Heretics, 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 Heretics (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 damned.  
This is evident, not only in the Writings of private persons, but in their public and most Authentic 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 expressly 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 Proceed against those Conspirators, containing their Examinations, Trials 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 gins 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 'tis no lying Legend or Romance, nor any unlicenced seditious Pamphlet, but an Authentic History of an Impious and Monstrous Roman Catholic Conspiracy, or of a Popish; containing the Examination, Trial, Evident Conviction, and just Condemnation of those Popish-powder-Traytors: Then proceeding to open the heinousness of the Attempt, he tells us that it was a Villainy 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 maimed 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 Villainy so manifestly contrary to the Light of Reason, and all Humanity, as well as to Scripture and Revelation.  
For though he confesses it true that the Pope and his Party in these last 600 Years, have murdered many thousand better Christians than themselves under the mistaken notion of Heretics, by Armies raised purposely, and encouraged to such bloody and unchristian Executions; as also by their more barbarous and inhuman 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 Heretics, viz. Waldenses murdered; that our own Archbishop Usher 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 Archbishop of Spalata, cap. 18. §. 19 etc. proves no less evidently by their own Historians, that about 142990 of the same poor harmless people, were in 60 years' time murdered by the same bloody Party, and in the same Country: And though (to pass by a Cloud of other Witnesses) a prudent and sober Roman Catholic, viz. Father Paul of Venice; Hist. Council Trent, 119, 120, tells us first of 4000 Waldenses, and then of 50000 Protestants inhumanly slain in the same Country by the Authority and approbation of the same Party, who were drunk with the Blood of the Saints: Yet notwithstanding these were wicked and monstrous Popish Cruelties, they were not immediately and absolutely destructive of poor persecuted Christians. Because  
1. When Armies were raised against them, they had some time to fight, or flee.  
2. That when they were caught, and brought to a seeming Legal Trial and the Inquisition, they had some time to plead, or at least to pray, and make peace with God.  
3. And that the Execution of these Cruelties was only upon some particular persons, in some one Province, City or Village.  
But that the Hellish Gunpowder Treason, contrived chief by the devilish subtlety of the Jesuits, and their Complices, would have been, if successful, a far more private and sudden, and a more universal and compendious Villainy than all those; because not only the King, but both Houses of Parliament were designed to be blown up and murdered in a moment; and the whole Kingdom, as 'twere, assassinated, not in dead Effigy only (as Malefactors are hanged in some Countries,) but really in its Living Representatives, the whole Parliament. But referring his Reader to the Book itself, and the public Acts of Parliament concerning it, for a more full Discovery of that matchless Treason, he passes on to give them some Reasons for reprinting the following Book: Which are:  
1. That many Pious and Learned persons, since the happy discovery of the late damnable and Hellish Conspiracy of 1678. (as the Two Houses of Parliament, says he, truly call it at a Conference of both Houses, Novemb. 1st of the same Year) being desirous to look back, and examine the Particulars of the Gunpowder Plot, which was formed in the same Popish Forge; and by the same Jesuitical Artificers, though they much sought, yet could not find this Book, which having been printed above 70 Years before, was grown very scarce; for which reason 'twas thought convenient in that tottering condition of public Affairs, occasioned at that time by Traitors of the same Stamp, to reprint it.  
2. Because the Discovery of the Gunpowder Treason was such a Mercy, as was both wonderful, as being wholly owing to Providence, and likewise public and national, and in that though hatched in Hell, and carried on in darkness, and with all the secrecy which policy could invent, yet it was discovered by the allseeing eye of Providence, whose penetration no clouds can interrupt, and whose Designs no Policy can baffle; and therefore as a miraculous and general Mercy was worthy to be kept in perpetual remembrance by our whole Nation; as was practised in memory of all public deliverances, by the Churches of old, both Jewish and Christian; and that by God's own command or approbation; as appears by the Celebration of the 
(a) Ex. 12.24, 26, 27.  Passover, to commemorate the deliverance from the Egyptian Slavery, of the Feast of 
(b) Esth. 9.18.  Purim for the delivery of the Jews from the cruel designs of Ambitious Haman; and the Institution of the Blessed Sacrament by our 
(c) 1 Cor. 11.24, 25.  Lord himself, in commemoration of his delivering mankind from more than Egyptian Bondage, viz. the slavery and punishment of Sin: All our Gracious God requires or expects from us in such occasions being a grateful memory, and acknowledgement of his Mercies; to which this Book, as containing an Authentic History of the great mischief intended, and by Popish Adversaries prepared for this Nation; and of the miraculous and inexpressible Interposition of God's mercy in preventing it, might much contribute.  
3. Another Reason, why this Book was Reprinted; says our Author, was that all Persons, both roman-catholics, Foreigners, and others what have Authentic Evidence, to refute the lies wherewith the Disciples of that baffled Plot, would impose upon them; by persuading them, that it was no Popish Plot, but only a trick of Cecils. Upon which occasion, in order to a brief Refutation of them, even in this very Preface, he citys the most remarkable words to this purpose, of a late Scribbler of theirs, (though otherwise, a Man of some parts and Quality) in a Book of his, called Calendarium Catholicum, or Universal Almanac, Printed 1662., by which Title he means only a Popish, or Roman Catholic Almanac; being Calculated only for Rome's Meridian, and being not Catholic in any other sense; the words our Author citys, are in pag. 2. Ad Annum, 57 The first words cited are, That it was A HORRID PLOT; but yet, that it was suspected to be politicly contrived by CECIL. The next Citation is towards the end of the said Almanac; in Explication of holidays, set apart by Act of Parliament, upon occasion of the solemnising the 5th of November; in these words, viz. That the Gunpowder Treason, was more than suspected to be the Contrivance of Cecil the Great Politician, to render Catholics Odious. In both places (proceeds our R. Author) He confesses, That some Roman Catholics were in that ●lot, but yet extenuates the matter, by adding, that though some Roman Catholics were in that Plot, yet there were but few detected; and those but desperadoes too. So that this Popish Author would have it believed, that it was no Popish, but only Cecils contrivance, who was a Protestant; and that those pretended Popish Desperadoes; who were detected in it, were drawn into that Conspiracy by that cunning Politician, to make the Catholics Odious. Which though it be so Groundless, and Impudent an Assertion; and containing such evident untruths, in matter of Fact, against the sense of a whole Nation; and the public Acts and Declarations of King, Lords and Commons, in a full Parliament; that 'tis impossible any Man not resolved to believe a lie, or to impose upon others, should publish any thing like them; yet our R. Author, wonders not that they who are impious and impudent enough, to design and attempt to act such prodigious Treasons against their King and Country, should have as much Impudence to deny them, when for want of success, their Unchristian, tho' miscalled Catholic Cause, is like to suffer by an Ingenious Confession. And whereas that Popish Writer affirms, That there were only a few Papists detected in that Popish Powder Plot: Our R. Prefacer, desires his Readers impartially and fairly to consider,  
1. That it appears by the following Book, that their Number was not so few, as pretended.  
2. And that since that wicked Plot was contrived and managed, with the greatest sworn secrecy, made Hellishly sacred, and firm by solemn Oaths; and an abuse of the Holy Sacrament, never intended for such unholy and horrid purposes; that it is a greater wonder there were so many, than that there were so few of them detected.  
3. That admit but a few of them were detected in England; and punished, yet that it was well known by the Jesuits, and their Confederates beyond the Seas, long before its discovery here; our Prefacer affirms, may manifestly be made appear, out of Delrio, and some others of their own Writers.  
4. Whereas that Popish Calendar asserts, That the Papists in the Powder Treason, and Conspiracy were Desperador's of a Religion, which detests such Treasons: And that all sober Catholics utterly detest that, and all such abominable Conspiracies: our Prefacer to that Answers,  
1. That he easily grants those Gunpowder Traitors, to have been indeed Desperadoes, or Desperate Villains; because none but such could have been capable of so Devilish an attempt, nor so Abominable Conspiracy, as the Calendar truly terms it, against their King and Country. But then if those concerned in that Plot, were only Desperadoes, and not sober Catholics; he would fain know, what those Great and Learned Popish Writers were; who in writings approved by their whole party, so highly commend those Gunpowder Traitors, and other of their Faction, justly Condemned and Executed for High Treason, and who tell us, they lived like Saints, and died like Martyrs? And was their renowned Father Parson's sober; when he says of Garnet, a Principal Gunpowder Traitor; that he was an Innocent Man, who suffered injustly: That he lived a Saint's Life, and accomplished the same with a happy Death, dying in Defence of Justice? And was not his Brother, Petrus de Ribadenira of the same Society, a sober Man, as well as the approvers of his Book, Entitled a Catalogue of the Writers of the Society of Jesus. Printed at Antwerp, 1613. pag. 377. In the Index of the Martyrs, when in the said Book, he reckons Garnet, Southwell, Oldcorne, etc. (Gunpowder Traitors) amongst the Martyrs of the Jesuitical Society; as likewise Campian, who was justly Executed for 
(a) Cambdens Eliz. an. Reg. 24. lib. 3 pag. 239. 240.  High Treason; whom he ranks among The most Renowned and Famous Martyrs of Christ? And not to trouble the Reader with more Testimonies, to prove a truth notorious to all that will Read their most approved Authors, our Prefacer, out of many, only adds what one Abraham Bzovius, in his Book of the Roman Pope, or Pontif, written to prove the Pope's Extravagant Power to Depose Kings, etc. asserts; and how rarely well he proves his Doctrine, by the conformable practice of his Popes; when he gives us a Catalogue of about 
(b) Abraham ●●zo●ius, de Pontifice Romano, cap. 46. p. 611.  30. Kings and Princes deposed, or by Solemn anathemas Cursed and Damned by the Pope, and citys about 
(c) ●zovius ibid. pag. 619, 620.  200 of their most Learned and famous Authors, to prove and justify it; and how passing from them, to Campian, and the Gunpowder Traitors, justly Executed in England for their Treasons, he further boasts, That an 
(d) Abraham 〈◊〉 ●bi●. 〈◊〉 ●6 p●g. ●●●. ●ol. 1.  innumerable Company of English Martyrs following their Captain, Edmund Campian, taught the same thing, that is, they taught the Pope's unlimited Supremacy, and pretended Power; to damn and depose Kings, and authorize their Subjects, to take Arms against them, they being alleged to no other end. So that with them Treason and Innocence, Traitor and Martyr, seem to signify the same thing; which premises considered, our R. Prefacer appeals to any sober and unprejudiced Reader, whether such desperate and received Principles, viz. That an Excommunicate, or Heretic; i. e. Non-popish King, is ipso Facto, devested of Majesty and all Royal Authority; and vested with the Character of a Tyrant, and Enemy to the Roman Catholic Cause; and consequently may be killed, etc. And that such as engage in any such impious design, if they miscarry and suffer for it, (as 'tis hoped they always will do, as they have done hitherto) are Famous and Renowned Martyrs of Christ; and whether the certain assurance such Resolute Villains have, that if they should change to suffer for any such attempt instead of being branded for Traitors, they shall stand exalted in Red Letters in their Calendar, and be magnified for Martyrs; whether all this can be otherwise than a mighty encouragement to them, to any Plot or Conspiracy, how black and impious soever; especially when they shall consider it not only to be Glorious and Meritorious, thus to promote their Cause; but their bounden duty so to do, when the Jesuits give the Word? And whether all this again can be less encouragement to them to design and Execute any conspiracies; against any whole Nations of Protestants, as well as their Princes, whom they look upon as the worst of Heretics; and Prescribed Enemies of their Church, not worthy to live in the World, as being Condemned by the Pope's Supreme and Infallible Sentence; to be Prosecuted More Romano, with Fire and Sword! Certainly such an Opinion, says our Prefacer, true or false, must needs put them on with a strange fury, to endeavour the utter Extirpation, and ruin of those they believe to be such impious villains, and so hated of God and Man. And though our Prefacer Confesses he knows some of that Party, and hopes there may be more of a better temper, yet to show his Readers, what Opinion the Popish party have generally of Protestants, both Prince and People, here in England; he inserts their Character of us in the Words of a Popish Pamphlet, Published since the late King Charles' Restauration; to Poison their deluded People with a hatred of all Protestants, and of their Religion: In which Pamphlet, are these Assertions; viz.  
1. That the Protestant Religion is a Cheat, Heresy, and Heathenism. pag. 3.  
2. That the Protestant Bible, is no more the Word of God, than the Alcoran of the Turks. pag. 4.  
3. That all Protestant Bishops, Ministers, etc. are Priests of Baal, Cheaters and false Prophets, ibid.  
4. That they are false Bishops, 
(a) Pope Pius in his Bull 4. of Damnation, and Excommunication, against Q. Elix. An. 1570. §. 2. Calls them, Wicked Preachers, and Ministers of Impiety.  Sons of Iniquity, and Fathers of Mischief, and Antichristian, ibid. pag. 16.  
5. That the Protestant Religion, is Ridiculous, and Idolatrous.  
6. Again, that all Protestant Bishops, and Ministers are Priests of Baal, Ministers of Satan, and Enemies of God, and our Souls. pag. 32.  
7. And lastly he adds, that the King and the Parliament were Sectaries, and Heretics: ibid. pag. 32. Which Pamphlet has this Title, viz. Miracles not Ceased. By A. S. London, 1663. And contains, as is pretended, in the Title Page; The most Glorious Miracles, wrought by a Roman Catholic Priest, about London, and Westminster; in 1663. in Confirmation of the Holy Roman Catholic Faith; which Priest is there termed, a Holy Man of God, and is said pag. third, to be sent by God, to do Miracles, in Confirmation of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and her Doctrine. pag. 15, 16.  
Our Prefacer tells us, the words he has cited are that Popish Authors own words; and the Articles of Impeachment, he brings against Protestants; and that he pretends, he has clearly proved some of those Articles in another Book of his, which he Intitules, The Reconciler of Religion; for so he calls it, pag. 3. of the above cited Book. So he boasts, and so, adds our Prefacer, 'tis 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 'tis 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 Politic Adversaries forbidden 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  of Fathers of that Council, about prohibited Books; and approved 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, 'tis 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 publicly damned 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 'tis; is more destructive of Error, than any one Error is of another.  
2. When he scurrilously Reviles the King and Parliament, by the abuseful Names of Heretics, and Schismatics; our R. Prefacer, would fain know what warrant he has from any Law, or from Reason, or Scripture, to Revile any Supreme, or subordinate Power Ruling over the People: such a practice being Condemned, by the Laws of England, which make it High Treason to call our Sovereign, 
(a) 13. Eliz. cap. 1.  Heretic, 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 citys, as a Natural and Moral Law, still in force under the Gospel, Acts, 23.5. Which he renders there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thou shalt not speak Evil of the Ruler of thy People, to show us that Moses's Expression of Cursing, extends of all manner of Blaspheming, or Evil speaking: which is further confirmed by St. Peter (though his pretended Vicar, has learned to speak loftier Language) who reckons them that speak Evil of Dignities, among Capital Sinners, 2. pet. 2.10. as does also St. Judas, v. 8, 9 telling us, that even Michael the Archangel, durst not bring a railing Accusation against the Devil himself: Whereas now not only the Pope, but every Paltry 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 Heretic, who by the Instigation of the Devil, committed Sacrilege; for Alienating Abbey Lands: upon which occasion, our Prefacer asks, if Hen. VIII. were Sacrilegious in Alienating those Lands, what was the perpetual Alienation of them, confirmed by Pope Julius III. and Q. Marry, and her Popish Parliament, and Convocation? Vid. Stat. 1. 2. Mariae, cap. 8.  
And for one other Instance, of their skill in Railing Rhetoric, he citys the Bull of the Canonization of Ignatius Loyola, Dated at Rome, 8th, of the Ideses 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 Lie, can possibly believe, That the Protestant Religion is Heresy, or Heathenism, or that 'tis 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 Heretics, 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 Supreme 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 the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola, Printed at Antwerp, 1635. pag. 238. to which are added some Rules to be observed, in order to direct us the better to believe as the Church believes.  
1. The first Rule is, That wholly laying aside our own proper Judgement, we are always to have a mind entirely disposed to obey the True Church, pag. 128. Reg. 1.  
2. The second is in these terms: And that we may be perfectly unanimous with and conformable to the same Catholic Church, though she should define that which appears to our Eyes to be White, to be Black; yet are we obliged likewise to pronounce with her, That it is Black, Reg. 13. pag. 141.  
Which Rules and all other Contents of the said Spiritual Exercises, are approved and received by the whole Body of Jesuits, and not only so, but further most highly commended in these words, viz. That they were full of ●iety and Sanctity, and very useful for promoting the Edification and Spiritual proficiency of the Faithful being the Expressions used by the Pope himself, in the aforesaid Bull of his Canonization of Ignatius Loyola, Pag. 5. Sect. 22. Edit 8. of the Ideses, or the 6th of Ang. 1623. And further no less commended by the Cardinal of St. Clement's, a Roman Inquisitor, the Vicar General, and the Master of the Sacred Palace, to whose Inspection and Censure that Work was committed by the Pope. And what is still more, the same Supreme, and, according to the Jesuits and Canonists Infallible Judge, the Pope, gives this further high Character and Approbation of that Book, and its Contents: We do Approve, Commend, and Establish all and singular the Contents of them, of our own certain knowledge; earnestly exhorting all and every faithful Believer, or Believers in Christ, of both Sexes, and wheresoever inhabiting, to make use of such pious Documents, and devoutly to be pleased to be instructed by them, being the express terms of the above-cited Bull, ibid. pag. 5.  
Now this wicked and erroneous Doctrine, (pursues our Prefacer) being once granted, and actually embraced for an Authentic Doctrine of their Church; as actually it is; It is no wonder the Jesuits and the Popish Party should securely study and use all means imaginable for the utter Extirpation of all Protestant Princes or Subjects, by Fire, Sword, Gunpowder-Plots, or any other Conspiracies, or Methods whatsoever: Because that tho' such attempts may justly seem horrid to all sober Men, and even to honest Pagans; yet the Jesuits and Popish Party are so far from esteeming them sinful, that when done out of Zeal to their Cause, and with the approbation of their Superiors, which never fails them at a dead lift, they are applauded as Virtuous, nay, and what is more, as highly meritorious.  
And 2dly, Though such actions in their own Judgements, should appear to be indeed what they are, sinful, and black, and barbarous, yet what effect can that have upon Men who have been taught to renounce all their own reason and sense too, and submit to and obey with a blind obedience all the Dictates of their Superiors, to call White Black, and Vice Virtue, whenever they bid them, and to think all things lawful and just which are commanded by them? as may be seen in the Constitutions, with a Declaration of the Society of Jesus, printed at Antwerp 1635. part. 6. cap. 1. pag. 233. and ibid. part 3. cap. 1. sect. 23. pag. 123. Nay, and that they are further enjoined to obey their Superior, as if he were Christ Himself, is visible, ibid. In the General Exam. with the Declar. cap. 4. pag. 37.  
And whereas the Jesuits endeavour to hid the odiousness of this impious absolute obedience to any but God and his Christ, by a pretended qualification of its sense, in thus explaining their Universal Obedience, viz. That they must obey their Superiors in all Things in which there is no manifest sin As they tell us in the above cited Book▪ part 6. cap. 1. pag. 233. and 234. Those (says our Prefacer, are but Jesuitical Frauds and pitiful Shifts, sorry Fig-Leaves that may a little cover from unwary Eyes, but never justify their Doctrine of Absolute Obedience from Impiety.  
For (says he) of what use can that Restriction be, viz. Where there is no manifest sin, to those who have before renounced all use of their own judgement and senses, and who though they see and know a thing to be sinful and wicked never so plainly, yet if they be told it is good and holy, are bound to think it so; and if they are but commanded it, are bound to think that Command alone is sufficient to make it lawful, just and meritorious; and that if they obey not thus without any excuse or murmuring, their obedience cannot be perfect? As they are taught in the above-cited Book, pag. 233. and again, part 3. cap. 1. pag. 123.  
2. When he reflects upon that injunction of theirs, by which they are obliged to respect their Superiors as Persons that are Ch●ist's Vicars, and that act in his place and stead, as we find it in the above-cited Book, pag. 123. and 152. and part 4 cap. 10. pag. 183. and Epist. 1. Ignat. of the Virtue of Obedience, to the Portuguese Brethren, Sect. 4. and ibid. Sect. 3 and 11 our Prefacer thinks this sort of Jesuitical Divinity, viz. that every little superior in that haughty Society must be obeyed a● Christ himself, and to be esteemed as his Vicar, that is the Pope himself, must needs be as dangerous to the Pope's Authority, as to that of Princes, or others; and that, adds he, a Learned Spaniard, and Zealous Papist, has both said, and by evident instances proved, That Author's Name is Alphonsus de Vargas of Toledo, and the Title of his Book runs thus: A Relation to Christian Kings and Princes of the Stratagems, and politic Tricks and Quirks of the Society of Jesus, to engross the Monarchy of the World to themselves: In which, the Treachery of the Jesuits against both Princes and their People, and their  and injurious practices against even the Pope himself, and their unbridled Ambition to Innovate in matters of Faith, is proved by manifest Examples. Printed first Anno 1636, and afterwards Anno 1642.  
3. Neither do they only (says he) advance their Superiors to be God's Vice-gerents, and Vicars of Christ, but further affirm them to be the Interpreters of the Divine Will, to whose Government they have wholly given up themselves to obe● their Commands, as the Commands of ●hrist, and to make their Superiors Wi●●● the Rule of theirs, as appears in the above cited Epist. 1. of Ignat. of the Virtue of Obedience, to the Portuguese Brethren, Sect. 11. And in that other of the Constitut. of the Society of Jesus, with the Exam. and Declar. Printed at Antwerp, 1635. cap. 4. Sect. 30 pag. 37. and in the Summary of the Constitut. of the Society of Jesus, Printed at Antwerp, 1635, Sect. 31. pag. 17. which Blind and Absolute Obedience, (pursues he) is highly approved and commended to them by the same Ignatius in Sect. 3. pag. 13. of his above-cited Epistle, where he tells them, That they must not obey their Superior upon the account of his being qualified with Divine Gfts, but only because he acts in the place of God. And that if he be not so prudent as he should be, yet they are not to abate a whit of their obedience for that, because he represents his person whose Wisdom cannot be deceived, and who will himself supply whatever shall be wanting in his Minister, whether he want honesty, or any other Ornaments and Graces. So that by this Divinity, (says our Prefacer) let their Superiors be as simple or as wicked as they will, yet they may securely, and most readily and conscientiously be obeyed by their Inferiors in whatsoever they command.  
And then he proceeds to show us how Ignatius proves this Doctrine; and this (says he) though no wise Man would, he pretends clearly to have proved by express Scripture, viz. Matth. 23.2, and 3. where our Saviour enjoins his Disciples to do whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees said unto them, because they sat in Moses Chair. And says our Prefacer thereupon, If the Jesuits pretend themselves the Successors of those Scribes and Pharisees in Moses Chair, than they might indeed (though without all sense and consequence) plead for themselves▪ as they commonly do for the Pope, viz. The Pope sits in Peter 's Chair, and therefore is as infallible as he, and must be as absolutely obeyed in all he says; for so (adds he) Pope Agatho argued, and his Argument is accordingly Registered by Gratian, and confirmed by Pope Gregory the 13th for Law, as appears in Can. sic omnes. 2. Dist. 19 and in the Bull given at Rome, July 1. 1580, and prefixed before the Canon-Law: And so with equal reason, though ridiculously, might the Society, as (says our Prefacer) Ignatius a brisk Soldier, but a sorry Disputant, actually does, viz. Thus, We succeed the Scribes and Pharisees, and sit in Moses Chair, therefore all we command must be observed. But (pursues our Prefacer) I suppose they'll hardly own they succeed those Scribes and Pharisees whose impious and corrupt Doctrine and Manners our Saviour so severely censures, and pronounces so many Woes against, Matt. 16.6, and 12. Matt. 23.16, 17, 18. Matt. 23.13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29.  
And if they deny they succeed them, than their Founder's reason will still appear weaker, and more ridiculous if possible, being only this, viz. All that those Scribes and Pharisees delivered sitting in Moses Chair, was to be observed, therefore whatever the Jesuitical Superiors among Christians, who sit not in Moses Chair, must be observed. Which is such paltry stuff as is not worth the proposing, and much less deserves a serious confutation, (adds our Prefacer;) nor had he troubled himself, as he tells us, to answer it, had it not been so confidently urged by so great a Saint and Soldier as they esteem Ignatius; and were not the Jesuits very apt to think and say, as sometimes they do, that such Reasonings, though never so childish, could not be answered because they were not.  
But however it appears (continues he) that though Ignatius' Reasons were weak, his Faith was strong; because though without any tolerable Reason, or concluding Premises, he firmly believes, that all his Society are obliged to a Blind Absolute Obedience to all the Commands of their Superiors, and most eagerly presses it upon the belief and practice of all his Society, and particularly in his above-cited first Epistle; and because we find by Experience, that since his Decease, his Society, whether for their own interest, and out of Reverence to his Authority, or from any other Motive, have right or wrong approved his Epistles, and his Spiritual Exercises, etc. in their Institutes of the Society of Jesus, printed at Antwerp, 1635. and most industriously vindicated; and I may add, but too mischievously practised that Blind and Pernicious Obedience. Having thus represented and explained their Doctrine, he draws up a short sum of it, whereof this is the Substance, viz  
1. That both Ignatius and his Successors agree, That to attain a perfect Obedience, it is necessary Inferiors should renounce all use of their own proper Wills, Senses, and Judgements, so far as to believe White Black, and Black White, Virtue to be Vice, and Vice to be Virtue, upon their Superiors bare word; Reg. 1, and 13. of the Summar. Constit. Sect. 31. pag. 17.  
2. That, as their Ignatius says in his 2d Epistle of Religious Perfection, printed at Rome, the 4th of the Nones, or the 12th of March 1547, they must not only Renounce, but Mortify, and Slay, and Sacrifice, as a kind of Victim, their own Wills and Judgements; for Mactate is his word: Nay, that they must believe that Providence moves and rules them by their Superiors; and therefore that they must be as so many dead Carcases, or Staves in their Superiors hands, and let them tamely turn and wind them whithersoever they please, as appears in Constitut. with the Declarat. part 6. Sect. 1. cap 1. pag. 234. and that they must entirely and readily obey them without any excuse, or any trial or examination, whether they be just, or lawful, or agreeable to God's Will, or no: Summar. Constit. Sect. 31. pag. 17. and part 3. cap. 1. Sect. 23.  
3. And that the Will of their Superiors is to be the Rule of their Wills and Judgements: That if the Superior commands any thing, that is warrant enough to oblige them to believe the thing well commanded, and to be not only just and good, but so good, that nothing better, or more pleasing to God, could be done proceeding from their own Will and Judgement; as may be seen in Constit. Sect. 31. pag. 17. Constitut. with Declarat. part 6. cap. 1. pag. 233, and 234.  
4. And Lastly, concludes our Prefacer, 'tis all the reason in the World, were their Principles true, they should pay this Absolute Obedience to their Superiors, since they believe them to be as so many Vice-gerents and Vicars of God and Christ; and that their Commands are to be respected as the Commands of Jesus Christ, as they teach in their Summar. Constitut. Sect. 34. pag. 18.  
From the Consideration of which Premises, our Reverend, and Zealously Protestant Prefacer, tells us, he thinks we have but too much reason to believe, that while there are any Jesuits in England, or any such Superiors as the Pope, or their General, or Provincials to Command, and any Inferiors to Obey, 'tis impossible any Protestant King, or Subjects can be safe, unless they could repent of their Wicked Principles, and Bloody Practices, which they cannot do so long as they are so strongly bewitched to believe them just and true; or unless God himself interposes, as he has hitherto done, by his wonderful Providence, to detect and defeat their Mischievous Contrivances and Attempts; for that, as 'tis but too notoriously known by many repeated Instances, how unwearied their Attempts have been all along against Queen Elizabeth, King James the First, King Charles the Martyr, and his Son King Charles the Second, and their People and Religion, by War, Conspiracies, and Plots of all sorts, and Poison, Pistol, Stabbing, and all sorts of Murdering Methods: So (pursues he) we cannot reasonably doubt, but that as long as there remain any Persons of such pernicious Principles, they will perpetually be designing; and whenever they meet with power and opportunity, will ever be ready to execute the like designs against our Country and Religion in all Generations. And therefore though our Prefacer protests he would not, to save his own Life, wrong the least Jesuit; yet that on the other hand, to save the same Life, he would not so far betray his Religion, (which (says he) all Good Men should ever value a thousand times beyond their own Lives) as to conceal their Principles which are so eminently dangerous to his Country and Religion. And besides what he has already said and proved of them, he begs leave to add, what Desperate Resolutions themselves profess to have taken against us, and what they further say of themselves.  
1. Says he, Father Campian reputed a famous Martyr at Rome, though fairly executed for High-Treason at Tyburn, tells us plainly his mind, and the resolution of his whole Society, viz. That all the Jesuits in the whole World, have long ago entered into a Confederacy to cut off, by any method they can, all Heretic Kings. And says the same Bold Jesuit again, As for what concerns our Society, I would have you to know. That all we who are of the Society of Jesus, and who are far and wide disper●sed throughout the whole World, have entered into a Holy Confederation, that we shall easily surmount your Machine's, and shall never despair of it so long as one Jesuit is left alive. See Campian's Letter to the Lords of the Queen's Privy Council, Printed at Treves, Ann. 1583. pag. 22. And Hospinian citing it in his History of the Jesuits, pag. 246. adds what Creswel the Je●uit says in his Philopater, viz. That all Catholics are so to be instructed, that whensoever they meet with an opportunity to kill Heretics, they should suffer no manner of Impediment to divert them from it; so that even Kings, if they be Heretics, must be killed whenever opportunity serves: This being the Jesuits express and avowed Doctrine in print  
2. And this (says our Prefacer) is the more credible of them, because they believe a thousand such Murders of Kings or Subjects, is no mortal sin; nay, and what is more, to tempt young Boys into their Society, and make them believe it excels all others in goodness, they pretend they cannot commit any Mortal Sin, for that their Founder Ignatius procured them that privilege by his Prayers, for 100 Years to be counted from the Day in which the Rules of their Order were confirmed by the Pope; and that their other Great Saint Xavierus, by the same means, procured the continuation of it for 200 Years longer; so that according to that computation, from the Year 1540, in which their Order was confirmed, to the Year 1840, the Jesuits never have committed, nor ever can commit any Mortal sin, supposing it true, that they have obtained any such privilege, as they have openly affirmed, not only to young Boys, and to the Mobb, but even to Cardinal Borromeo; who was so disgusted at this fulsome Lie, that he would never endure to see them, or hear of them afterwards, as he several times confessed to his Friends. All which is proved by a Learned and Zealous Author of the Roman Catholiek Communion, viz the above-cited Alphonsus de Vargas, in his abovesaid Book, cap. 14. So that it will highly concern, (says our Prefacer) all Protestant Princes, and their Good Subjects, truly to consider, what encouragement such a belief may give to the kill of Heretics of all Degrees and Qualities, when they shall think 'tis no Mortal sin, but for their own interest, and the Catholic Cause, so to do.  
3. But besides this pretended privilege of Exemption from falling into any Mortal sin, there is another thing still, (says our Prefacer) that may give all Protestants just occasion to fear, the Jesuits will be always ready to contrive, and (when and wheresoever they shall find themselves able) to put in Execution all manner of Plots, and bloody and violent Methods whatsoever, for the Extirpation of all Heretics, and particularly Protestant's, and that is, the great Corruption of their Manners, and their personal Impieties, as they are summed up, not by any Protestant Writers, but by that Zealous Spanish Papist, De Vargas, who in his above cited Book, pag. 37, and 38. of the Edition of 1642, and pag. 15. of the Edition of 1636, inserts this Character of them out of a public Remonstrance, presented against them to the Catholic King of Spain, in the Name of all the Universities of Spain. These are his words: The Universities of Spain (says he) in a Remonstrance publicly printed, and sent to the King, describe the Jesuits to be Men notoriously Covetous, Unsatiable, Sharking Cheats, Stealers of the Royal Revenues, Arrogant, Ambitious, Flatterers of Princes, Courtiers, and ever meddling in all manner of Secular Affairs, Fraudulent, Liars, Perverters of Truth, Defamers of Virtue, Enemies to a Religious Life, Lovers of pleasure. Impostors covered under the Veil of Piety, Wolves in Sheep's clothing; Friends of Novelty, Contemners of the Ancient Doctors, partakers with Luther and Calvin, and suspected of Heresy, Disturbers of the public Peace, Men of a Devilish Industry, Serpents, and very Cacodaemons, or Devils themselves; whom all are concerned to beware of, and avoid.  
This Character of the Jesuits is none of our Prefacers (as he tells us;) but, as he has proved, a Spanish History, and no Calumny of his: And in case they be guilty of all, or but some of this charge, (as he fears they are) he professes that he did and would pray, that God would give them Repentance and Pardon too for the same; but says, That he knows not of any answer they have given to this heavy charge as yet; though it had been at the time of his writing, published above 40 Years against them. However, he desires his Readers to consider the Quality of the Witnesses that charge them with so many, and so heinous Crimes, viz.  
1. That they are no Protestants, nor any upon whom they dare fix the Name of Heretics, but Zealous Spanish Papists.  
2. And they not single Persons, but public Societies and Bodies of Men.  
3. Nor they Lay-Townsmen, or Citizens, which according to the Gloss in their Canon-Law, Laici sunt Clericis oppidò infesti, are always spiteful against the Clergy, but considerable and Learned Bodies of Men, viz. Universities.  
5. And not only some of them neither, but no fewer than all the Universities of a great and famous Kingdom. And  
5. That a most Catholic Kingdom, the most devoted to the Pope, and Popish Religion, of any in Europe, viz. Spain.  
6. And that not by way of a private Testimony in some particular inferior Court of Justice, but presented publicly, first to their King, and then to the rest of the World, in print.  
7. And Lastly, That they Witness against Persons that lived among them, and whose daily Conversation they could not but know, and be proper witnesses of; and consequently that Protestants have no reason to doubt them to be really such Persons, as by such Grave and Authentic Testimonies they are proved to be.  
Upon consideration of which premises, and of the Principles, Persons, and encouragements the Jesuits have to attempt the destruction of all Protestants, both Princes and People, the Advice of the Spanish Universities seems very reasonable to our Prefacer, viz. That all persons ought to beware of them, and avoid them; to which he adds, and to banish and chase them too out of all Protestant Countries; for that as mournful experience has shown, 'tis morally impossible Protestants should enjoy any secure peace or safety, where any such restless encouraged and resolute Malicious Spirits are suffered to harbour.  
But besides these encouragements, peculiar to Jesuits, there are more and greater encouragements still common to them and all of the Popish Communion, to animate them to design and attempt the ruin and extirpation of all pretended Heretics, especially Protestant's, and their Religion, whom they esteem the most dangerous Enemies of their mistaken and superstitious Novelties. For that Pope Innocent III. with his General Council, promised those Soldiers who taking up the Badge of the Cross, to fight against and utterly to destroy all pretended Heretics like so many Amalekites, with Fire and Sword, were therefore called Crusadoes, or Cruse signati, the same 
(a) Council Lateran. 4. Ann. 1215. Cap. 3. of Heretics.  Privileges before granted to those that went out against the Turk and Saracens, to Re-Conquer the Holy-Land, which were chief two, viz.  
1 The Pope and the Council granted them a plenary Pardon and Indulgence of all their Sins while they lived; as appears in t●e Bull of Innocent III. given at Rome with the approbation of the Council, the 19th of the Calends of January, or the 13th of December, inserted in a Collection of Bulls Printed at Lions, 1655. pag. 88 and Sect. 17. page 89. Tom. 1.  
2. They promise the said Crusadoes, not only Heaven and its Glory, but a greater portion in the rewards due to the Just, than other Men, as appears Ibid. in the same Bull. Where our R. Prefacer again entreats his Readers to consider the following particulars remarkable in the premises, viz. 1. The Excellency of the Reward, which is no less than Grace here, and Glory hereafter. 2. Who makes promise of all this? viz. The Pope, and a General Council by them received. 3. The certainty they have of enjoying the effects of those promises, which arise from the strong conceit they have of the Supreme Authority and infallibility of the Pope and Council who make them. 4. That assurance they have that the Murdering of Heretics is at least Innocent and Lawful, because so glorious a Reward is proposed for it, by such an Authority, which they cannot think capable of so great an Error and Impiety, as to promise Heaven to such Actions as deserve nothing but Hell and Damnation. 5. That tho' many things are lawful which are not necessary, no nor at all expedient neither, in some peculiar places and circumstances; yet this destroying of Heretics with Fire and Sword, is according to the Principles of Papists, not only Lawful, but a necessary duty, which they cannot omit to do when required, upon pain of Excommunication, and of being delivered to the Swords of them who will be more cruelly obedient than themselves; as appears by the Decree of the said Pope Innocent, and his  General Council. See Council. Later. 4. Dict. Can. 3. Whereby all Governors, whether Supreme or Subordinate, Ecclesiastical or Civil, are obliged to take an Oath, to cut off all Heretics, or at least all those that shall be marked out to them by the Church for such, out of the places of their respective Dominions, and Jurisdictsons; and that if they did not speedily put his Christian and Dovelike Decree in execution upon the first admonition, that their Subjects should be discharged by the Pope from all Obedience, and their Dominions given away to them that should promise to be bloody enough, to obey the Pope and that Decree, to the fullest extent of severity, as appears in the same Council. Can. 3.  
So that by what has been said and proved, our Prefacer affirms that it appears to him, and as he supposes will to many others very plain, that the Murdering of Protestant Princes and Subjects, who are at Rome declared and reputed Heretics, is not only, 1. A Lawful Action, but a Necessary Duty, in that Church's Opinion, at least in some particular Cases and times, tho' it justly appear to all others a Black and Damning Sin. 2. And such a meritorious Duty deserves both Remission o● Sins here, and increase of Glory ●fterwards. 3. And that the Actors of such Holy Tragedies, are assured not to be branded for Murders, but to be Canonised for Glorious Martyrs in their Romish Calendar, and perhaps honoured with Shrines and Incense in their Churches. And how powerful incitements such Doctrines hearty believed, may be to those that believe them, to the contriving or executing of all sorts of Villainy against Protestant princes, States, and People; he warmly tells us, past times have been, and unless Providence prevent, future times may be Rueful witnesses. But be it how it will, he concludes, that Gunpowder-Conspiracies, or any other Traitorous and inhuman Methods of cutting off any Christians, and much less Princes, indictâ causâ, can be no just means to obtain forgiveness of Sins, or the Glorious Crown of Martyrdom; that Traitors may be Murderers, but can never be Martyrs, and that such Hellish Actors as their Church encourages, and pretends to sanctify, may be a Roman, but can never be a Christian way to Glory, whatever Gloss the Pope and his Party put upon such barbarous Exploits. However, 'tis not to be questioned, proceeds he, but that those who are possessed with a delusion strong enough to believe the Pope and Council's Infallibility, as all Papists truly so called, are obliged to do, will always be disposed to design and attempt the destruction of all Heretics, and of Protestants above all, whether Princes, or People, by Armies, open War and Rebellion, when they are strong enough; or by private Conspiracies, by Gunpowder, Sword, Poison, or any other pernicious means whatsoever, when they want a Military Power, as he hopes they always will; and that God will likewise, as he has done hitherto, continually detect and defeat all their private Plots, tho' never so darkly contrived, and surely laid; and continue to his Church among us that protection, and to its Enemies that confusion he has hitherto done; and that he will not suffer us to be guilty of such ingratitude and stiffness in our 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 ●arty to such a desperate and unheard of attempt as this Gun-power-Treason, which he thus lays open. When that mischievous Party saw that all the black Designs they had hatched 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 endeavoured it by Poison, Stabbing, Pistol, open War, Rebellion, etc. proved successless, and when they saw King James in quiet possession of the Throne, and considered his great Learning and Zeal to the Protestant Religion to be of invincible proof against all their deluding enticements to the contrary, they lost all patience, and by a new and unparallelled Villainy, resolved to dispatch him, and his Kingdom too in some sense, 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 height, that it could no longer forbear flashing out against that good Prince, their lawful King, was, says our Prefacer, a public protestation he made before his Principal Lords both Spiritual and Temporal, and declared to all the Judges, the Lord Chancellor, 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. expressed 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, etc. 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 Authentic 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 designed 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, written by the Reverend and Learned Dr. Barlow, Late Lord Bishop 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 ●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 men's 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 gradually thus argues in his Saints Everlasting Rest, pag. 225, etc. 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, etc.  
Sol. To give a just Answer to which, and withal 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 Question● 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 called by the same Name of Grace in the Scripture. 1. Because the Graces here meant, are properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Gracious, and Gratuitous effects of that Original Grace that bestows them, which is the Love and Favour of God, and not that Original Grace itself; 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 diminution, 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 because all the Grace here spoken of, is a Gift freely and frankly bestowed upon men, it can't but be supposed such men must have their Natural Being, before they can receive any such Graces: For John and Peter must be supposed to be men, before they can be qualified with any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or infused Graces, to make them Gracious men: All gifts necessary, presupposing the persons to be first in being to whom they are given. From which Position it necessarily follows, that none of our Natural Powers and Faculties, such as are our Understanding and Will, and all the several Acts flowing from them, are, nor can simply or properly be, or be called Graces, for that very reason, because they are natural; and because by Grace in this Question all men generally understand something superadded to Nature, and to our Natural ●erfections. The use of which consideration, he tells us, will more fully appear in the Sequel of this Discourse.  
Consi. III. Whereas Mr. Baxter asserts; That our Understandings and Wills are Physical- the same; of the same substance; and that an Act and an Act are Accidents of the same Kind.  
To this our Author answers, 1. That this Assertion, as here expressed, is manifestly false, they being so far from being the same in specie, that it is the general Opinion of all Philosophers, as well as 
* See Aquin Nat. 1. Quaest. 771, 781, 791, 901. 82. and his Commentators and Followers.  School-Divines, That the Understanding and Will are Natural Faculties, specifically distinct one from the other. 2. But if by this Expression (Our Understandings and Wills are Physically the same) Mr. Baxter means, that the Faculty of the Understanding as 'tis common to all men, so 'tis specifically the same in all men, and likewise the Will in the same manner: This he grants as true, for that both the Understanding Faculty in all men, and the Faculty of the Will in all men, whether good or bad, wise or foolish Saints or Sinners, Hypocrites or Regenerate Persons, whether they be alive here, or else in Heaven or Hell, not excepting even the Understanding of our Blessed Saviour himself, are all of the same Species. 3. But yet that this makes nothing to prove, that Common and saving Grace differ not specifically; Because 1. The Understanding and Will being but Natural Faculties of the Soul, cannot with any good Sense be called Graces; as is evident from the First Consideration 2. And because if they were Graces, they would not be capable of any Degrees; because according to that known Rule of the Schools, Natural Powers can admit of none.  
Consi. iv When Mr. Baxter says, Is not Common Belief & Special Belief, Common Knowledge and Special Knowledge, all Knowledge and Belief? Is not Belief the same thing in one and another, though but one Saving? To this he answers; That he grants it true; But that it will not follow, that because all Belief is Belief, and all Knowledge is Knowledge; therefore that all sorts of Knowledge, and all sorts of Belief are specifically the same; since 'tis evident that though the demonstrative Knowledge of a Mathematician, the Artificial Knowledge of a Mechanical Artificer, and the Supernatural Knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, are all universally Knowledge, yet none can truly say, they are all specifically the same Knowledge, and differ only in Degree. But if any shall assert otherwise, our Author desires him to consider.  
1. That the Knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, by a lively Faith wrought by the Holy Ghost in the heart of a true Believer, is a Divine Knowledge, both in respect of the Principle from whence it flows, and of the Object to which it tends; whereas the other sort of Knowledge are but Humane; and he cannot think that any one will say this sorts of Knowledge, and those others are only different in degrees: Since 1. Not only their Objects, but their Principles too, are as different as Heaven and Earth. 2. And that they have very different Acts, viz. the one being a Gracious Sanctifying Act, and the other not; the one being such as may be in any wicked man, nay, and in the Devil himself; who, for all his ill Qualities, may be, and is a good Mathematician; and the other such as is not to be found but in a Regenerate Person. 3. That were there only a Gradual difference between them, it would follow, that Human or less Knowledge might be improved into a Divine or Saving Knowledge, only by exalting it some Degrees higher. But this, says our Author, is impossible; for let our Knowledge in Mathematics, for instance, be exalted to the highest perfection, yet it is evident it would never arrive to be a Divine, Sanctifying or Saving Knowledge, but still remain a bare Human, Natural or Artificial Knowledge.  
Consi. VI To this Expression, viz. That the Understanding and the Will are Physically the same, of the like Substance; and an Act and an Act are Accidents of the same kind; and Common Love to God, and special Love to God, are Acts of the same Will, etc.  
Our Author answers  
1. That these Expressions are very improper and incongruous. 1. Because the Will and Understanding cannot in any proper, Logical or Philosophical Sense be called like Substances, because they are no Substances at all, but Accidents. 2. Because though by Substances were meant only their Natures or Essences; yet to say they are physically the same in Nature and Substance, and then presently to add, They are of the like Substance, is a contradiction: For that if they be of the same Substance, they cannot be of like Substance only, because according to that old Rule in Logic, No Like is the Same with that to which it is like. 3. But it being granted (as 'tis) that the Understanding and Will in different men, as in Hypocrites and Regenerate Persons, are specifically the same, yet it does not follow, but that the Acts of them may be specifically distinct, and that ●ven about the same Object. Thus the same man may, at different times, Love God and hate him; where 'tis to be observed, that love and hate are Acts of a Will both Specifically, and Numerically the same, and yet the Acs themselves are not so, but specifically different, the one being an Act of Virtue, and the other of Vice. 4, Our Author tells us, He is assured 'tis not only a Gradual difference. 1. Because Acs of pursuing an object, and flying from it, cannot but differ more than gradually. 2. Because those different Acts may be in the same degree naturally considered; for that 'tis possible, St. Paul for example, may love Christ now in the same degree in which he hated him before; and therefore two Acts of the same Will, and in the same Degree, may yet be specifically different; and consequently it will not follow, that because the Will from whence they spring is specifically the same, therefore its Acts are so too. 5. And the same, adds he, may be said of loving or hating the same Sin at different times, in the very same Degree, or of any Volition or Nolition of the same Object in the same persons, etc.  
Consi. VI Whereas Mr. Baxter asserts, That the Acts and Exercises of Common and Special Grace differ only in degree, and so the difference between Common and Special Grace is only g adval, and not specifical: our Author humbly conceives this Position to be false, and inconsistent with the just and known Principles of both Divinity and true Philosophy: and that for the following Reasons, viz.  
1. He supposes that Actions Evangelically good and well pleasing to God, are sometimes specifically different, as is an Act of true Charity from an Act of Saving Faith; and sometimes only gradually different, as is the least degree of Saving Faith, in a we●k, but true Believer, from a stronger and more perfect Faith in a strong Believer: For good and good in the same Species, says he, cannot possibly differ more than in degree. But Acts of Common Grace in Hypocrites and Reprobates: must needs differ more than so, from Acts of special Grace in the Regenerate. Because 'tis certain that good and good in the same kind or species, neither do, nor can differ ●o much as good and evil, these latter standing in a direct and formal opposition one to the other, and being incompatible, and naturally destructive one of the other. And that Acts of Common Grace in Hypocrites, and of Saving Grace in the Regenerate, are Acs as far different as good and evil, he proves; in that it appears, that Acts of Saving Grace are Evangelically good and wellpleasing to God; but that the Acts of Common Grace in the Unregenerate are not so: For that how specious soever they appear, when all their Circumstances are examined by the Touchstone of the Law and Gospel, they are always found to be but as the Father calls them, Splendida peccata; Splendid perhaps, but yet sins for all that false gloss that shines upon them: Which, says he, seems further evident;  
1. Because since without Faith, 'tis impossible to please God, those Acts in the Unregenerate, which are confessedly done without Saving Faith, can neither be Evangelically good, nor please God.  
2. Because Hypocrites are not good Trees, but are compared to Thistles; and therefore though they may bring forth fair, yet can never produce good Fruit.  
3. Because Hypocrites and Unregenerate persons are fleshly minded, enemies to God, and in a deadly or damnable condition, in which they cannot please God, Rom. 8.5, 6, 7. Rom. 8.8. And are spiritually dead in sins, and have no spiritual life, and much less the Acts of it, which we can have only from Christ and his Spirit. Col. 2.13. Eph. 2.1, 2, 5, 12. 1 Joh. 5.12. Joh. 15.4, 5. From whence it seems to follow, that the Acts of common grace in such persons cannot be Evangelically good, nor pleasing to God, and therefore must needs differ more than gradually from the Acts of saving grace in the Regenerate; which are confessed by all to be both Evangellically good, and pleasing to God.  
2. Our Author desires us to Consider, that it is upon evident Reason confessed, even by Mr. Baxter himself, in his Saints Everlasting Rest, pag. 225. That the Acts of common and special Grace, as they are morally considered, differ specifically, and not only gradually; from whence our Author infers, that it follows, that whenever the Question is put; How common and special Grace differ? It must be always answered in the Affirmative, that they differ in Specie, and not in Degree only: And that because the Acts of our Understanding, and Will, are saving Graces in a Moral Consideration only, and in no other: And therefore that if in their Moral Consideration, they differ specifically from common grace, it can never be said without Nonsense, that they differ only gradually in any other Consideration: for that in a Physical, or Natural Consideration, they are no saving graces at all; so that if in that consideration, they should differ only gradually, it will not therefore follow, that common and special graces differ only in degree, for the Reason abovesaid: For, adds he, this argument, viz. Common and special belief Physically considered, differ only gradually, therefore common and special graces differ only gradually; means no more than, that things which are no graces at all, differ only gradually, and therefore common and special graces differ only gradually, Which being an illogical unconcluding inference; the former which is but the same incense, must be so too. And that those particular Acts of the Will and Understanding, viz. Saving Faith and Saving Love, as naturally considered, are no saving graces at all; our Author pretends to prove thus, viz.  
1. By the Contents of the second Consideration.  
2. By Mr. baxter's own Confession, That saving Love and Belief, are graces only in a Moral Consideration; who in his Saints Everlasting Rest. pag. 226. Tells us, That they are graces and virtues formally, in respect to the Law only, and their Conformity with it; and saving graces, with respect to the promise of God, who has proposed Salvation upon such conditions; which is a Moral, and not a Natural consideration of them; so that (concludes he) to say, that common and saving graces are specifically distinct in their moral consideration; is to say they are only and absolutely so distinguished; because they are saving graces in no other Consideration but that.  
Consid. 8. It is to be Considered, says our Author, That Common and Special Graces consist not so Properly, and Originally in the Acts and Exercise of Faith, Love, etc. As in the Habits, and principle from whence they flow; according to Suarez, and some others: As for Example, The Graciousness of our Actual Faith, or Love, consists not so much in the Essence of the Act Naturally considered, as 'tis the Natural product of the Natural Faculty, from whence it flows; as in the Circumstance, Manner, and Measure of it, from whence its Goodness and Conformity with the Law proceeds; which it has from the Habit, and Principle from whence it flows; the Act being more or less intense or remiss, perfect or imperfect proportionably, as is the Habit or Principle from whence it springs.  
2. And that as the Habits, whether Common or special Graces, are always in the Order of Nature, and mostly in the Order of Time, before the Acts, which are the Acts only of them, so they are much more lasting and permanent; the Acts ceasing whilst we sleep, or are in a swoon, but the Habits always remaining in us.  
And that since Habits do most primarily and principally denominate us Gracious, therefore they are most properly and principally to be esteemed those Common or Special Graces, which are the subject of the present Dispute: And consequently to proceed Rationally, in enquiring, Whether those Graces differ specifically, or Gradually; we ought first to inquire into their Habits, and then secondarily, into their Acts. And that for these Reasons, viz.  
1. Because the Acts derive their Graciousness from the Habits, and not è contra, and that the Acts cannot be known distinctly, nor first before we know the Habits from which, as from their Cause, those Acts proceed.  
2. Because if it be proved, that the Habits differ specifically, it cannot but follow without further proof, that the Acts do so too, which proceed from Causes specifically different.  
Consid. 9 So that now (says our Author) we are come to the main point or hinge of this Controversy; which is, to inquire, how the Habits of saving Grace differ from those called common Graces? In which, he proceeds in this Method;  
1. He lays down a position, viz. That the Habits of special and saving Grace, are specifically different from the Habits, and Acts of all sorts of common Graces. And  
2. He proves it by the following Reasons.  
1. The first principal Reason is, that there are many common Graces, or Extraordinary Free Gifts, which are properly Corporeal, and inherent in the Body; as Sampsons' strength, Absoloms' Beauty, etc. of which he supposes it undeniably manifest, that they differ specifically, and not only in degree, from the Habits of saving Faith, and Charity, etc.  
Reas. 2. That there are likewise many common Graces of the Soul, which enlarge our Understandings, and lead them to a more distinct Knowledge, and Comprehension of Natural things, than they could otherwise attain to; which is sometimes immediately, and miraculously infused by God, as was the vast Wisdom of Solomon; and sometimes acquired by the help of Natural Ingenuity, Industry, and the helps of an Uncommon Education; such as might be the great Natural Knowledge of Aristotle, Pliny, etc. Now such Knowledge of either of these sorts, though a common Grace, our Author takes to be so evidently more than Gradually distinct from Saving and Sanctifying Knowledge, such as is produced by a lively Faith enlivening, and sanctifying our Souls, that he supposes it needs no proof, and that no Man will deny it.  
Reas. 3. The Faith of Miracles is an instance of common Grace, that differs more than in degree, from special and saving Grace; which our Author thinks, cannot but appear, to be manifest to any Man that shall impartially consider the following several ways, in which they differ. viz.  
1. That they differ in their Principle; for that the Habit of saving Faith, is always an effect of the Spirit of Christ working new Life, and Regeneration in us, which the Faith of Miracles is not, as having been many times de facto given to unregenerate, and Reprobate Persons; where, though our Author confesses, that both these effects flow from the same Spirit materially and absolutely considered, yet it is under a several reason, and formality, which makes them several Formal Principles, and different enough to distinguish the effects that flow from them, more than Gradually: So that the giving of saving faith, is an Act of the Spirit inwardly Regenerating, and dwelling in the Regenerate, in such a peculiar way as is not in a Wicked Man; as appears in Rom. 8.9. Joh. 14.16, 17. Whereas the Faith of Miracles, is an Act of the Spirit only outwardly governing: again, says he, the giving of saving faith, is an Act of God's peculiar Love to that particular Soul to whom 'tis given; whereas the Faith of Miracles, as the Schoolmen say, is one of those Graces freely given to some, chief for the advantage, and Salvation of others. See Becan. in his Sum. of Scholast. Divin. part. 2. Tract. 4. cap. 1. paragr. 4. pag. 719. And Aquin. 2. 2. Quest. 178. Axiom. Artic. praefix. and Grotius upon Matth. 7.22.  
2. That they differ in their Subjects: For that the Faith of Miracles, may be in a Wicked Man, that continues so till Death, and is damned; as appears from Deut. 13.1, 2, 3. Matth. 7.22, 23. and is confessed even by the Popish Writers, though they make Miracles a mark of the true Church: As appears in Mart. Delrio, Disput. Magic. lib. 2. Quaest. 7. Maldonat. in Matth. cap. 7. v. 21. Socrat. Hist. lib. 7. cap. 17. pag. 744. of Paul Novatian, Bishop Tolet. Comment. in 3. Joh. Annot. 2. etc. Theophylact. in Matth, 7. pag. 41. Whereas a justifying faith can be only in Regenerate Christians, and is often and most commonly where the Faith of Miracles never was, nor ever will be; for that the major part of just persons never did, nor never will work Miracles, and therefore these two sorts of Faith must differ more than gradually: because if saving faith were only a faith in a greater degree, than the faith of Miracles; it would necessarily include in it the faith of Miracles; as a heat six degrees strong, includes a heat of four degrees; but it is plain, that saving faith includes not miraculous faith; and therefore they must differ in Specie or Kind, and not only in degree.  
3. That they differ Ratione sui, and in themselves.  
1. For that Saving Faith sanctifies and justifies the Person who has it, whereas the Faith of Miracles doth not so; for which Reason Aquinas calls it, A Grace freely given which is common both to the good and bad, 2.2. Quest. 178. in Axiom. Art. Praefix.  
2. In that, Saving Faith is permanent and perpetual, but the Faith of Miracles but Temporary,  
4. That they differ in respect of their Adjunct. For that  
1. Saving Faith is ahvays joined with true Charity, as its natural and inseparable Effect, whereas Miraculous Faith may want it, as appears in Matth. 7.22. where our Saviour says, he never knew some such Miraculous Workers, no, not even when they wrought those Miracles, that is, as saith Theophylact on the place, he never loved them, or owned them for his which is a mark they had no true Charity (says our Author;) because had they loved him, he would have expressed more love to them. See Theophylact in Matth. 7. pag. 41. See Grotius on the same place, as also Lyranus.  
2. For that St. Paul, if he speak of a thing possible, as 'tis most likely he does in 1 Cor. 13.2. plainly shows, That the highest degree of Miraculous Faith may be without Charity, and therefore true and saving Love and Charity is no necessary adjunct of Miraculous Faith, though it be strong enough to remove Mountains. See Calv. Inst. lib. 3. cap. 2. par. 13. pag. 188. and Faust. Socin. Epist. 3. ad Matt. Radec. pag. 121. and Lyvan. and Vorstus, 1 Cor. 3.2.  
5. That they differ in respect of their Acts. For that  
1. The Act of Saving Faith, justifies and sanctifies its Possessor, which the Faith of Miracles does not.  
2. Because the Act of Saving Faith is Immanent, and acts within the Subject in which it is, and not all in any other Subject without it; whereas the Act of Miraculous Faith is transient, as working Miraculous Effects in other Bodies besides that in which it is, as healing the Sick, opening the Eyes and Ears of the Blind and Deaf, etc.  
6. That they differ in their Object; for that Justifying Faith is an entire assent to the whole Gospel as far as 'tis sufficiently Revealed, whereby Men believe Christ's Power, his Precepts and his Promises too, and acknowledge them to be good, both in themselves, and in respect to ourselves the best and only means to conduct us to Heaven; so that their Understanding enlightened by Faith, discerns such an Excellency in Christ, and in his Promises and Precepts, and believes it so entirely, and without reserve, that it contemns all other things, as the Apostle says, Phil. 3.9. from whence follows the Obedience of Faith, which is always accompanied with sincerity, tho' not with perfect integrity, which is desired and endeavoured for in this Life, but attained only in Heaven. See Mr. Baxter's Aphorisms of Justification, Aphorism 69. pag. 261 and 262, etc.  
But, to the Faith of Miracles, he asserts it with Calvin, upon 1 Cor. 13.2. That it does not comprehend whole Christ, but only his power in working Miracles; so that it includes, says our Author, an assent to these three Propositions, viz.  
1. That God is of power to work Miracles.  
2. That he will be ready to assist those who believe and rely upon him with such a Miraculous Faith.  
3. That he will particularly assist me, (if supposed to have such a Miraculous Faith) in working such or such a Miracle.  
The first of these all Christians, nay, and all Men, even by the Light of Nature, know, that know and believe God to be Almighty.  
And as for the second, Christians know it by the general promises to that purpose in the Gospel, Matt. 17.20. Luke 17.6. John 14.13, etc.  
But as for the third, viz. That he will particularly assist John, or Thomas, or you, or me (says our Author) in working such and such Miracles, this depends on particular Revelation, or Inspiration. See Jac. ad Port. Bernatem in def. Fid Orthod. count. Christ. Ostorrod. cap. 30. pag. 377. Now therefore as all Faith must depend upon Authority, and Divine Faith such as Miraculous Faith is upon Divine Authority, and because this Miraculous Faith was not a Gift common to all Believers, but a particular Gift, and a particular sort of Faith, as Gennadius apud Oecumen. in 1 Cor. 13.2. pag. 465. Edit. Graec. Veron. 1532. Fred. Baldwin. in 1 Cor. 13. pag. 687. Philip Melanchton, Toleman Heshus, Calvin, and other Protestant Divines tell us, as do likewise St. chrysostom, and the Greek Scholia; and a Faith particularly relying on the Revelation of God's power and willingness to work such and such Miracles, by such and such Persons, and at such and such times only; therefore this Faith must needs have a far different object from a true Justifying Faith. And therefore being different from it in so many several respects as is proved, and almost all the ways 'tis possible for two habits to differ in, it cannot but be plain, that they differ more than in degree.  
But to proceed to other proofs; if saving faith, and that of other miracles differ only in degree, or as a Disposition and Habit, our Author would demand, which his Antagonist would have to be the habit, or higher degree? If it be answered, That the faith of Miracles is the lower, and saving faith the Habit or higher degree, than it must follow, that all that have saving faith, have the faith of Miracles too; because all Philosophers and Divines agree, That when two Qualities differ only in degree, the higher degree always includes the lower, and consequently all the whole Virtue, and natural or moral Activity of it; and therefore, that every Habit necessarily includes the Disposition leading to it; from which it would follow, that all that believe with saving faith, must needs have the faith of miracles; which being de facto false, the premises must needs be so too.  
2. That saving faith includes not the faith of miracles, he further proves by our Saviour's giving his Apostles the power of working miracles, a good while after their calling to the Apostolical Function, and consequently after they had already received saving Grace, as appears Matt. 10.1. Luke 9.1.  
3. But if it be said, that faith of miracles is the higher degree, and includes saving faith, then says he, it would follow, that all that hare the faith of miracles, must needs have saving faith too. But that is contradicted by our Saviour, as he has above proved; as likewise by Aquinas, and all other Sober Men, both Papists and Protestants, excepting only Becamus, and a few other Servile Writers, sworn Slaves to the Pope. See Becan. in Summ. Theol. Scholar and in Compend. Man. lib. 1. cap. 17. Pag. 336.  
Reas. 4. Is drawn from the comparison of the Gift of Tongues and Prophecies, which are acknowledged by the Schools, and other Divines, to be common Graces given for the common advantage of the whole Church, and which yet differ so widely from saving faith, that they have scarce any common Attribute in which they agree.  
Reas. 5. Here our Author being sensible, that the main difficulty in this Question, seems to consist in clearing of this doubt, viz. Whether Temporary, or Common Faith in Hypocrites, differ Specifically, or Gradually only from Saving Faith in the Elect? Before he comes to the proof of his assertion, which is, That they differ specifically, desires us to consider.  
1. That by common Faith in Hypocrites he does not understand only a faith that is wholly false, or dissembled, but a real faith that includes both a true knowledge of, and true assent to several Divine and Gospel▪ Truths, such as many Hypocrites have, tho' it be not such as it should be.  
2. That this common faith, though by some Divines commenting on those parables in Matt. 13.5, 6, 20, 21. Luke 8 6. Mar. 4.5, 16, 17. it is called Temporary, and by others Historical Faith, as Zach. Vrsin. in Explic. par. 2. Quest. 21. par. 2. Cat. . etc. and Grot. in Matt. 13.21. yet it is but one and the same sort of faith, and means only a faith that wants a just and durable foundation to preserve it against the assaults of strong Temptations and Persecutions.  
3. That he conceives this faith is not called Temporary, as supposing it never endures till Death, because he believes it often accompanies such Believers to the Grave, that live and die in times of the Church's Prosperity, but only because it is of a temper which would not have been of proof against Persecution had it happened, nor ever is when it does come. From these Considerations, he passes first to his Position, which is; That this Common, Temporary, or Historical faith, be they different, or but one and the same, do differ more than gradually from saving faith, called in Scripture, the faith of the Elect, unfeigned, and an Effect of Christ's Regenerating Spirit in his true members. See Bishop usher's Summ. Christian Relig. pag 179. Zach. Ursin. par. 2. Cat. in Explicat. parag. 2. Quaest. 21. pag. 107. &c, Tit. 1.1. Primas. Uticens. in Tit. 1.1. Dion. Carthus. in loc. 2 Tim. 1.5. Calvin. Instit. lib. 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 etc. 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 Defence. Artic. 5. the persever. Sanct. pag. 230, 231. who in order to establish a worse Error, viz. The final Apostasy of the Saints, assert, That this common, or temporary faith, is not only specifically, but even gradually the same with saving faith, and would justify 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 justify. 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 Heavenborn 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 mere Humane Motives, and by mere Humane Causes, as false Reasonings, or more forcible Temptations and Persecutions may be overthrown and extinguished.  
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 'tis evident, common faith may be in a very high degree in some Impious and Unregenerate 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, etc. 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 justify 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, etc. and so depending upon mutable principles, as our Will and Understanding, 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, etc. 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 Unregenerate Persons by their natural parts helped with Learning, etc. 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, etc. And that it is really false appears by this (says he) that 'tis as impossible for a Christian to have any other Theological Virtues, or Graces without true faith, as 'tis for a Man, according to the Moralists, to have any other Moral Virtues 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. etc. 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, than it follows, that those who do not so accept and love him, have not the essence of saving faith; and therefore that since 'tis evident, that no Irregenerate Persons, though sometimes 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, than it would follow, that a Man who has an historical Faith, whilst Unregenerate, by the help of Natural parts, Learning, etc. 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, etc. 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 expressly 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. apud Franc. Jover. pag. 44, 45. Sect. 1. Class. 2. and Concil. Carthag. Ann. 418. Imp. Honor. 12. and Theod. Coss. Can. 112, 113. apud Justell in Cod. Can. Eccles. Afric. pag. 294 and Hist. Pelag. Voss. part 2. lib. 3. Thes. etc.  
And to each of these Reasons, he subjoins ample and learned Illustrations, and confirmatory proofs, and so after a short Reflection of Christian Commiseration upon the unhappy condition of the Church in these latter times, in that such Disputes as these should arise among any Christians, and especially among Protestants; and a pious wish, that they were all laid asleep, he concludes with this modest and generous Protestation, That if any person shall with that meekness and civility that becomes a Man, and much more a Christian, candidly and rationally answer that his Discourse, by evidently overthrowing his Reasons, and firmly proving the truth of his own, he should be so far from being angry with him, that he should thank God and him, for showing him his Error, and publicly acknowledge himself to be his Disciple and Proselyte.   

A Young Man being Converted from Popery to Protestancy, and being tempted by some Romish Emissaries to return again to their Faith, by amusing him with many Sophisticate notions of their Church having an Infallible Guide; Dr. Barlow being about the Year 1673. applied to, to write somewhat that might Confirm the young Man in his choice of the Protestant Religion, he wrote the following Paper, by means whereof the Convert remained unmoved and unshaken in that Religion.  
THat the Romanists Position concerning their Infallibility is impious, and (without any real ground) irrational. That such a pretended Infallible Guide is not necessary, nor (since the Apostles death) ever was in the World.  

1. Impious.  1. They make themselves the sole and 
(a) una Ecclesia Romana vera duntaxat est Ecclesia, una Fides. etc. Per honorat. Fabri. lib. 2. prop. 7. pa. 123.  only true Church in the World, and miscall themselves 
(b) Ecclesia Romana errare non potest, Ibid. pag. 120.  Infallible, and then (with a most unchristian and uncharitable censure) deny Salvation to any but themselves) and so 
(a) In Ecclesiâ duntaxat Romanâ homines salvari possunt. Ib. p. 133.  damn the far greater part of the Christian World. Thus a late and learned Jesuit (Honoratus Fabri) in a Book published with all the Licence and Approbation their Church usually gives their best Books; and to make it sure, that not only the Jesuits, but their Church also is of this uncharitable Opinion, their Trent-Council has pronounced 
(b) Haec est vera Catholica fides extra quam n●mo salvus esse potest; Concil. Trident. Sess. 24. In B●llâ Pii Papae. 4. Super formâ Juramenti professionis fidei.  Damnation to all those, who do not believe their new Creed, which (themselves excepted) no Christian Church in the World ever did, or (to this day) does believe.  
If any Man think otherwise, let him make it appear, that any Church in the World (even Rome herself) before the Trent-Council (which was but 111 years since) had, and believed that Creed, and I will become his Proselyte.  
2. But further, 
2. it is irrational Irrational.  to persuade or require us (or any body else) to believe an Infallible Guide, when they themselves are not yet agreed who this Infallible Guide is.  
For 1. the Jesuits and Canonists will have the Pope Infallible, nay, their Canon 
(c) Sic omnes Apostolicae sedis sanctiones accipiendae, sicut ipsius Divini Petri voce firmatae. Gratianus Can. sic omnes Dist. 9  Law declares (and citys the Authority of a Pope for it) that the Pope's Decrees are as infallible as St. Peter's; and if he succeed him in the University of his Jurisdiction, (as they say,) he may (with as much reason) challenge his Infallibility. But this no less than 
(a) Concil. Pisanum Anno 1409. & Constantin. Anno 1414. & Basiliense. Ann. 1438. Vide Concil. Pisanum Sess. 14. Constani. Sess. 12. basilians. & Sess. 34.  three of their own General Councils (before Luther) peremptorily deny? and all of them deposed Popes, as Simoniacal, Schismatical, Perjured, Heretical, etc. The Fathers of those Councils were (it seems) well acquainted with their Holy Fathers the Popes, and so could (and did) call them by their right names.  
And the Church and State of France does likewise damn the Doctrine of the Pope's Infallibility; and not long since, did damn it publicly both in the 
(b) May. 3. 1663. So Pope John the 2●th tells us, that the council of Constance was Concilium Sanctissimum quod errare non potuit. vide Constant. Sess. 12. Mediolani 1511. p. 11. Col. 2.  Sorbone, and Parliament of Paris, the King's Advocate Mr. Talon making a long and Eloquent Speech to that purpose.  
2. Many would have a General Council to be Supreme Judge, and so (if any be so) Infallible: This the three General Councils, (but now named) unanimously define; as all know, who knows them.  
This the Canonists, the Jesuits, the Court of Rome, (the Pope and his Parasites) universally deny, and think it (if not an Heresy, yet) a great Error.  
3. Others therefore will have the Pope and Council joined, to be the Infallible Guide.  
4 And lastly, others deny the Decrees of the Pope and Council to have any such Infallible Certainty, till they be received by the Church diffusive.  
France (notwithstanding any pretended Infallibility) never would nor did receive all the Decrees of the Council of Basil, or Trent: and 'tis notorious, that the Popish Writers tell us of General Councils, whereof 1. 
(a) Long. a Coriolano sex. Card. Bellarmino in Principio summae Coliorum. 1. Concilia gen. approbata. 2. Reprobata 3. partim approbata, parti, reprobata. 4. nec approbatum nec reprobatum Concilium Pisanum.  Some approved. 2. Some rejected. 3. Some partly approved, and partly rejected. 4. One (that at Pisanum 1409.) neither approved nor rejected.  
If General Councils he infallible, why are any (or any part) of them rejected? And if they be not Infallible, then 'tis evident, they cannot be an Infallible Guide: hence I infer,  
1. That it is Irrational to tell us they have an Infallibe Guide; when they themselves are not agreed, nor do (nor can) tell us who it is: For admit some of those named (the Pope or Council, or both together, or the Church Diffusive) were Infallible, yet till I can be assured which of them it is, none of them can be an Infallibe Guide to me; so that I may with certainty and safety rely on the determination; for so long as I doubt of the Guide, (whether this be he who is Infallible) so long I must necessarily doubt of his decree and definition; it being impossible that I should yield an undoubted and infallible assent to his Sentence, who (for aught I know) may be as fallible as myself; or assent to any conclusion without doubting, when the premises, for which I give that assent, are indeed dubious.  
2. And further 'tis 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 choose Representatives, or how many, or what power they can give them.  
4. Nor when they are called, Commissioned, and come, whether all must concur 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 'tis evident, that neither our Blessed Saviour nor his Apostles have assured us of any of these in Scripture; nor any acknowledged General Council since, ever defined Synodically, and declared a General Council to be Infallible. And therefore we have just reason to say, that it is irrational to persuade Men there is an Infallible Guide (and that a General Council) on whose Judgement 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 show 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 'tis 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 than 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) Extern 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) confessed 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, than your Roman martyrology, all your Missals and Breviaries are manifestly false, (and your Church errs;) in all which are hundreds of Martyrs 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 i● be said, that the many Heresies whi●● arose in after Ages, made an Infallible Guide (a General Council) more necessary; it will be replied (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, Phil●stinus, etc.  Fathers, who have given us just Catalogues of the Heretics 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, Ecumenical.  
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, etc. 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) called by the Roman Emperors, and consisting of Bishops within their jurisdiction.  
If it be said, that both Protestants and Papists call the Councils at Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc. Ecumenical or General Councils.  
'Tis 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 Ecumenical; 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 not (not so much as probable) ground for that pretence.  
That this may appear, I say, 1. It is confessed, 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 etc.) 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 error: 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 Church's , or any other Christian Church in the World. This will (I believe) seem strange to those who have irrationally enslaved 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 'tis in vain to seek it elsewhere;) and if they find no such promise (as I say, and am sure they cannot) than 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 myself happy to have an Infallible Guide) shall with all gratitude and speed, become his Proselyte. In the mean time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 'tis best to continue Protestant, till better proofs be produced for their pretended Infallibility, lest 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 passed, 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 pulled 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, etc.  great, and (notwithstanding the Pope's Definition) yet undecided Controversy between the Jansenists and Molinists; that about the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, not yet determined; nay, after two Kings of Spain 
(c) Vide Legat. Philipi. 4. & 4. Reg. Hispaniae ad Paul. 5. & Greg. 15. per Luc. Maddingum, etc.  had (with great expense and solicitation) importuned two Popes to determine it, yet neither they, nor the Trent-Council did, nor dared determine it.  
Witness also, that greater Controversy between the Church and Kingdom of France, and the Jesuits and Court of Rome, about the Pope's Supremacy, Infallibility, etc. In all, six propositions believed at Rome, defended by the Jesuits and Canonists, and derided 
(d) Vide Arrest de la 〈◊〉 de Perl●ment du Mar, 163●.  at Paris, both by the Sorbone and Parliament there.  
Once more, that great and fundamental Controversy 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, etc. or who it is? I say, this Controversy is not yet determined.  
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 satisfy 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, than 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 easy to believe him.  
6. 
6. The Council● which ●●e Church of Rome approves, and calls General, in many things erroneous and impious.  I say farther, 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 instance,  
In the great 
(e) Anno Christ. 1215.  Lateran Council under Pope Innocent the Third, in which were above 1200 Fathers (as your own 
(f) Joverius Council. class. 1. p. 120.  Authors tells us,) and they 
(g) Concil. Lateranum sub Innocent 3. Can. 3. de Haereticis.  declare, that for disobeying the Church in not banishing Heretics out of their Dominions, Supreme Princes may be Excommunicated by their Subjects, deposed by the Pope, their Subjects absolved from their Oath of Allegiance, and their Kingdoms be given to what Catholics the Pope pleaseth. So England in Queen Elizabeth's time, was by the Pope given to Philip the Second of Spain; and if the Invincible Spanish Armado, or the Prodigious Impiety of the Pope could have compassed it, he had ruined that Queen, and possessed her Kingdom.  
But there is no power or policy against Providence; our most Gracious Good God, did most miraculously preserve the Queen and her Kingdom from Spanish and Popish Slavery and Tyranny: Sit nomen ejus in saecula benedictum. I shall not endeavour to prove this Canon erroneous, for I am persuaded, there can be no Christian who knows his Duty to God and his King, but would abhor it, not only as Erroneous, but as highly Impious and Traitorous.   

THe Bishop having long ago, when he was a young Master of Arts, Printed his Exercitations in Latin, at the end of Scheibler's Metaphysics, and whereby he acquired great ●ame, both in our Universities, and all the Protestant Universities in Christendom; and there being one Exercitation on the Question, Whether it is better not to be at all, than to be miserable? A Question, that in his Account of the Arminian Tenants in this Volume, he refers to on that head, and the Bishop's performance in the Exercitation, being incomparable, and he having owned to his Friends that it cost him more pains than any of the rest; it is thought fit for the Reader's Profit and Entertainment, here to Print it as it is now Translated into English, viz.   

EXERCITATION I. In Which that celebrated and famous Question, (Whether it be more eligible to be annihilated, or not to be at all, than to be miserable?) is discussed: As also Durandus his Reasons are considered; who asserts, That it is better, and according to the Rules of right reason, more preferable to be miserable, than to be reduced to a simple non-entity.  
I Must entreat the Candid Reader to pardon me, if here my Style should appear rough, or harsh; for indeed it here savours more of Aristotle's Peripatum, than of Tully's Tusculanum: Herein I act the part of a Philosopher, not of a Rhetorician, designing only to present unto your view the truth, as it is in its simple, and naked Colours, without the fucus of Rhetoric. Wherefore I shall proceed to the discussion of the Question proposed; and in the first place there are two things which offer themselves to be distinctly explicated.  
1. If the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non esse be absolutely, and of itself good, or comprehend any absolute bonity in itself; which, when unfolded, will give clearer light to what is the principal quaesitum in the Question.  
2. If (to speak comparatively) to be miserable, be preferable unto, and more eligible than simply not to be.  
For the Resolution of the first, I shall lay down this Conclusion.  
Concl. I. That Annihilation, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non esse, (to speak in absolute terms) includes no goodness in it at all; nor taken by itself, (without relation to any other thing) can ever be the object of a Man's Appetite, nor move him to the desire and prosecution of itself.  
But that I may evince this more clearly, we are to know,  
1. That I do not deny but Annihilation may be apparently and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good, which is only an  denomination infixed upon it by an erroneous Intellect. So when one desires a thing that is impossible, that which he wishes for is not any real entity; yet when an erroneous Intellect represents it under the notion of a possible, and withal, useful thing, it appears as good: Wherefore a thing which is of itself impossible, and a mere non-entity, may enjoy some apparent goodness accrueing unto it from the error of Intellect; as in the Poet, though it be utterly impossible to retrieve the loss of time and years past, yet the restitution of them is apprehended as good and desirable by Evander. But the Question is not concerning this mere apparent bonity, since it is acknowledged that non esse may thus be apparently good. Wherefore,  
2. The Question in hand is, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non esse be really and truly good, by a real intrinsic bonity, whether we think of it and apprehend it as good, or not; and abstracting from that, if it be so truly and by itself good, as that it may reasonably be the object of a Man's desire or choice. And in this last sense I deny it to be good; which I prove thus.  
Reason I. Good does in its own nature include some positive perfection, as Vasques forcibly evinces in 1 Aquin. q. 5. disp. 23. c. 5. and as may be easily deduced from the most common and universally known Principles of right reason; for all evil is the privation of a due perfection, and all evil is likewise the privation of that which is good; from whence it necessarily follows, that good is the due perfection of a thing, and consequently is a positive perfection; for what is not positive cannot be the perfection of any thing: But to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non esse includes in itself a positive perfection, is so absurd, as deserves not to be confuted; for what positive perfection can be imagined, or feigned in a mere negation, or non-entity? From all which it manifestly appears, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non esse comprehends in it nothing of goodness or bonity.  
Reason II. As evil does always presuppose a foundation, or something which it must be evil unto, since it cannot be the privation of a due good, unless there be some foundation to which the good is due; so by the same chain of reasoning good must still presuppose something unto which it is to be good; for, since goodness is the adjunct of that subject that is good, there is a necessity that there should be some foundation or subject to which this goodness must be adjoined; and the foundation or subject which upholds this goodness cannot be of a lesser perfection than the goodness that depends upon it, and is upholden by it; whence it evidently follows, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non esse cannot be the foundation, or subject of goodness, nor can goodness be the adjunct of a non-entity; and consequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non esse cannot be good: which was to be demonstrated,  
Reason III. If goodness were competent not only to an ens, but even to its contradictory opposite non ens, then would it follow that Contradictories are not in the highest degree of opposition: the reason is, because those things which really and actually agree in goodness, cannot be capable of the highest disagreement, since agreement though in the least point, does necessarily overthrow the greatest disagreement, or oppositio maxima. But this Thesis is more evident than to need any strict probation, and is generally approved of amongst the Schoolmen, as we may see in Aquar. Aquin. in addit. ad Capreol. in 4. dist. 50. and in Bonav. Durand. Bassol. Francis. de Mayronis in eandem distinctionem; & Ariminens. in 2 dist. 34.  
Having laid down these Premises, I proceed next to what I proposed to be considered in the second place, viz. If (in a comparative sense) to be Annihilated be better and more eligible than to be miserable? And this question may be understood two ways.  
1. With respect to the manifestation of God's Glory; if the one be better than the other, or more eligible, in order to manifest the Glory of God; and then the state of the Question runs thus, Whether more Glory redounds to God by the Annihilation of a Creature, than by its Eternal Damnation and Misery?  
2. With respect to itself; then the question is, Whether in an absolute and abstracted sense, while considered by itself, without relation to any external thing besides, it be not more eligible to endure the misery of punishment, than to be Annihilated: For the better resolving of these we shall subjoin the Second Conclusion, which is,  
Concl. II. In respect of the Manifestation of God's Glory, it is better, and more eligible to be punished, than to be Annihilated; to be Miserable, than not to be: or (which is the same thing) the Glory of God is more manifestly declared in the inflicting just and deserved punishment on a sinful Creature, than in reducing the same to its primitive nothing, by the interposition of his Omnipotent Hand. The Reasons are,  
Reas. I. Because Annihilation manifests no more, than that God is Omnipotent, who can Annihilate; for, as by the general acknowledgement of all the Schoolmen, no less than an Omnipotent Hand can create so by the same necessity, Annihilation can only be compassed by the like power: but by inflicting just punishment on a Creature, not only his Omnipotence is manifested in preserving that same very Creature in its being; (for every Created Being must be upholden by that power by which it was created) but also his Justice is declared in giving unto a sinful Creature it's deserved and condign punishment: Therefore since the Eternal Damnation of a Creature, demonstrates not only God's Omnipotency (beyond which Annihilation cannot reach) but his Justice also; it contributes more to the declaration of God's Glory to be miserable by punishment, than by Annihilation to be reduced to nothhg. For it necessarily follows, that that which glorifies and declares more of God's Glorious Attributes, should tend more to his Glory, at least extensively; and it adds a greater weight of Glory, to have both the Omnipotence and Justice of God manifested in the just Damnation of his Creature, than only his bare Omnipotence to be exerted in annihilating the same.  
Reas. II. In the Damnation of a Creature, God's Omnipotence and Justice are not only manifested, but this manifestation is perpetual, and endureth to all Eternity; for since the Torments of the Damned are Eternal, the manifestation of those Divine Attributes which are employed in the execution of them, must likewise be eternal; but when a Creature is Annihilated, the manifestation of God's Omnipotence ceaseth together with the Creature upon which it was exerted. Wherefore, if the question be understood in this sense, viz. in order to manifest God's Glory, it is better and more eligible to be miserable, than to be Annihilated.  
Doubt 1. But, perhaps, some will think to avoid the pungency of this my last reason, by saying, that the manifestation of God's Glory doth not cease together with the Creature annihilated, but remains fresh in the Memories of Men, even after the Creature is gone; so that, though the act of Annihilating may pass in a moment, yet the constant remembrance of the same, by the successive Generations of Men may tend to the perpetual manifestation of God's Gory: As Homer's Iliads and his Odysseys were composed in a short space of time, and all the great and Illustrious Achievements of Caesar or Alexander, were in a little time accomplished; yet these same very works and do have survived their lost Authors, and the fresh and grateful remembrance of the same in the Memories and Mouths of succeeding Generations, hath erected Trophies to their everliving fame, while they themselves are possessed of the Region of Darkness: In like manner may the Glory of God be manifested in the lasting remembrance of so Glorious an action as Annihilation, tho' the Creature upon whom the action was performed be gone.  
Answer. In answer unto this, I confess indeed, that the glory of that action (viz. Annihilation) may remain after the act itself is past; but when I have granted all this, I am not at any loss in making good my assertion, That the Glory of God is yet more manifested in the eternal and just punishment of a Creature, since his Omnipotence is not only manifested by preserving it, but his Justice likewise by punishing the same; and, which is yet more, that manifestation is positively to endure for ever; and he who undergoes the punishment remains for a living Monument, and positive example of both the Omnipotence and Justice of God, which the annihilated Creature is not capable of. For if a Man were afflicted by God with most exquisite Torments, though for the space of one Day, it would manifest God's Glory as much as Annihilation: For this would declare God's Omnipotence in preserving the afflicted person, and likewise his Justice in thus punishing; and the memory of this Deed might be continued for ever: But when these same very actions, viz. the preservation of the Creature in its being, and the execution of Justice, do not only remain in the Memories of Men, but are perpetually continued by a constant positive existence in themselves, they cannot but contribute more to the demonstration and showing forth of God's Glory, than if the Creature had been annihilated.  
Doubt 2. But in the second place there is one, who is none of the meanest of the Schoolmen, that thinks to invalidate my Reasons by questioning if there be not a greater share of Glory detracted from God by the constantly repeated sins of the Damned, than can accrue unto him by inflicting their due punishment upon them? For, (as shall afterwards be evinced) the tormented in Hell do sin against God, even unto Blasphemy: So that it would not seem more eligible to be miserable, than not to be, with respect to the manifestation of God's Glory, if more be diminished from the Glory of God by the sins of the punished, then can be added unto it by their just Punishments.  
Answ. That I may briefly and clearly remove this Scruple, I fix upon this Assertion; That the Glory of God is not so impaired by the sins of the damned, as it is augmented by their condign punishment.  
Reason. III. And the Reason that makes for this seems very convincing to me, viz. Because the chief design, or the Vltimus finis that God proposes to himself in punishing, is his own Glory; in the attainment of which he cannot be disappointed: So that I assert it impossible for those who are punished with Eternal Death to derogate more from God's Glory by their sinning, than they add to it by enduring their deserved Torments; otherwise God would be disappointed of his proposed end; Quod est absurd. & blasph. Who would say that, That Man confers any Honour upon Caesar, who though he have some few Panegyrical Say to his praise, yet subjoins many more to his dishonour and dispraise? Or who would call that Water hot, which for every two degrees of heat hath four degrees of cold? For the Major part counterballancing the lesser, obliges the whole to take its denomination from it; according to that trite axiom: Denominatio semper sequitur majorem partem. In like manner who could reasonably assert, that God hath obtained his end, (viz. the manifestation of his glory) in punishing the Wicked with the Pains of Death Everlasting; if more detriment should redound to his Glory by their Sins, than advantage by their being thus punished?  
We acknowledge therefore that with respect to the Manifestation of God's Glory, it is better and more eligible to be miserable than not to be: that is, the glory of God is more manifested in inflicting just punishment on a sinner, than in reducing the same to nothing. And this is asserted by Bonav. in 4. d. 50. q. 2. Mart. Ledesma in 2. Quart. Quaest 100 As also by the generality of the Schoolmen in 4. dist. ult. But this is not the true meaning and state of the Question that is here intended; viz. if it be more eligible to be miserable than not to be, in respect of God's Glory; But the Question is: if, while considering the thing absolutely in itself, as abstracted from all forinsick Considerations, it be more preferable to be miserable, than not to be. And the Question thus stated may again undergo a twofold Sense,  
Viz. 

1. According to the judgement of the man himself, who is in misery; and then the Question is, Whether the man who is oppressed, and in the highest degree of ●●●ery, doth not account it better for him to have no being at all, than to enjoy it thus followed with such miserable conditions.  
2. According to the decision of rectified and impartial reason; whether it be really and truly more eligible to be annihilated than to be miserable.    
Concl. III. For the resolution of which we conclude 3ly. It is beyond all controversy, that in the Judgement of the Miserable man himself, it seems better to him to be annihilated, than to be eternally tormented with such insupportable and exquisite Torments: And this will appear evident if we consider these Reasons.  
Reason I. That experience teacheth us how many have done violence to themselves, only upon the ac● unt of the petty and less considerable Anxieties of this Life, choosing rather not to be, than to endure the misery of their condition, viz. Infamy, Penury, and such like: Thus the Usurer is recorded in History to have strangled himself, because his Money was stolen from him.  
Reason II. This is expressly proved by Aquar. in Addit. ad Capreol. in 4 di●t. 50. out of Aquinas, who citys that of the Apocalypse 9.6. And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall fly from them. This Conclusion is likewise proved by Bassol. in 4. d. 50. q. 1. Note that Durandus in 4. dist. 50. q. 2. and many others; and Bonav. ibid. quaest. 1. affirm that the Eternally Damned judge it better to be annihilated, than to be in such misery: But this their Judgement is rather erroneous than conform to the true nature of the thing itself, their Reason being biased either by the violence of the present Pains; or being rendered disorderly, prejudicated, and fantastical; as Bonaventur. saith ibid.  
But passing by all these Senses in which the Question may be taken, we shall confine it only to this Sense; if in the nature of the things themselves it be more eligible to be miserable, than to be annihilated? Or, if according to the solid and judicious Dictate of rectified Reason, the enjoying the good of existence, though accompanied with misery, be not preferable to annihilation; and consequently the being deprived of that existential good, viz the good both of 〈◊〉 esse, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bene esse; and all this only to be freed from some misery that is entailed upon existence?  
But here we are to remark that the bonity or goodness, which is competent to the eternally damned, may be considered two ways,  
Viz. 

1. Absolutely and precisely, in itself, as the good of being, or bonum essentiae.  
2. Relatively, with respect to some evil, as a necessary Companion, affecting those who are thus subject to Eternal Death.    
Concl. IU. These things being premised, I conclude 4ly. It is certain and undoubt●●ly true, that to enjoy the good●●●●f existence, or bonitas essentiae, (which 〈◊〉 eternally damned possess,) while taken by ●●●elf, and without respect to any annexed evil, is better than to be annihilated.  
Reason. The Reason is; because it is better to have some small degree of goodness, than simply to have none at all; and therefore it is more eligible to possess the bonum essentiae, as the damned do, than to be deprived of all goodness by a total annihilation,  
But neither is this the present State of the Question; wherefore we shall consider it thus: If it be better and more eligible to enjoy the small goodness of existence, or bonitas essentiae, though followed with eternal misery, than to be totally bereaved of all goodness, only in order to be freed from that evil? This is the only difficulty and main importance of the Question, viz. If, when that eternal misery, which the damned are liable unto, is laid into the balance with this bonitas essentiae; the bonitas do not preponderate, and over balance the evil of misery? For if it do, than it is more eligible to be punished with death eternal, and still to enjoy the good of existence though clogged with that misery which is less valuable than the existence; but if the evil should preponderate, than it is better to be annihilated, and be deprived of all the goodness that can follow upon existence, that so freedom may be purchased from that evil, which upon this last Supposition is more to be minded than the good of existence.  
Concl. V Upon which I conclude in the 5th place: It is better, and in conformity to right reason, more eligible to be annihilated, than to be eternally tormented; notwithstanding that existential good that the Damned possess. And this will seem very plausible, (if not infallibly true) if we consider the following Reasons.  
Reason I. That State or Condition must be the better, and in conformity to right reason more eligible, in which there is no liableness to the Wrath and Anger of God, than that which is inevitably followed with the everlasting wrath and displeasure of the Almighty, for ever abiding upon those who are placed in it. But he who is annihilated, cannot be the Object of God s wrath, since it cannot display itself upon a non entity: Whereas the Divine Wrath doth for ever abide upon those who are eternally tormented. Therefore annihilation is preferable to Damnation.— This Proposition will appear yet more evident, if we remember, that as God's Love, and the enjoyment of him, the necessary consequent of the former, are the greatest good that a Creature is capable of; So the Wrath of God, and the want of that fruition, are the greatest evil that a Rational Creature can be affected withal. Wherefore I form my argument thus; If the Wrath of God and the being deprived of the enjoyment of him, which necessarily follows on the former, be the highest degree of evil that a Creature can be obnoxious unto; than it is better to be annihilated, than to be liable to the eternal wrath of God: for there is no good that the Creature thus Circumstantiated can possess, which should be equivalent to this evil: Since the chiefest good (which only can counterpoise the greatest evil) is incompatible with the highest evil, in one and the same subject. Since therefore the damned are in perpetual subjection to the Wrath of God, and consequently arrived at the highest pitch of misery; and since what go●d they in this condition enjoy is mixed with so much evil, that it cannot be the chiefest good, it is better to be annihilated and freed from that greatest evil than to be ete●naly damned, and endure that extre●it● o● misery though accompanied with a small and far less considerable good.  
Reason. II. That State or condition whi●h is sinless, is more reasonably to be chosen than that in which the Creature is still spitefully blaspheming against God, and maliciously hating him. But he who is annihilated sinneth not, neither indeed can he, since he is subject to no Law, as being a n●n ens; for the Law is obligatory upon none but such as are rational Creatures: and he who is annihilated is not of that nature; Wherefore it is impossible that he should be guilty of sin: Whereas the damned who undergo the eternal punishments are still sinning against God in an hideous manner: As Aquarius does expressly prove out of Aquinas in addit. ad Capreol. in 4. dist. 50. & Bassol. ibid. q. 1. & Bonav. art 1. q. 1, 2. and several others. Durandus in 4. dist. ●6. q. 5. proves plainly that according to the rules of right Reason it is more eligible to be annihilated than sin. And Anselm. lib. ●ur Deus Homo: Debemus potius v●lle mundum uni●ersum annihilari quam aliquid ●●eri contra voluntatem Dei; We should rather wish that the whole universe were annihilated than any thing were done contrary to the will of God.  
Doubt. There is only one scruple against this proposition, which deserves our consideration, and it is this: If it be better to be annihilated than to be damned, because the annihilated are free from sinning against God, and the damned are not; then, for the same re●son, it shall be more eligible to be annihilated than live here in this World, since the annihilated sin not, but the inhabitants of this lower World are daily provoking God with their repeated and heinous trespasses; So that it would seem better, after this method of reasoning, to be annihilated, than to live upon Earth: But this is absurd: Ergo & illud ex quo sequitur.  
Answ. I shall endeavour to give a satisfactory answer to this Objection, in a very few words; and 1. I deny that there is any parallel similitude of reason betwixt the antecedent and consequent; for although it be most certain, that while we live here, we are defiled with many sinful spots; yet doth it not follow that therefore it is better to be annihilated than to live here. The reason is, because, though in this life we commit many trespasses against God, yet sincere repentance for the same, which is our duty, can procure the the restitution of God's lost favour and countenance; and so purge and cleanse us from our polluting transgressions; that afterwards we may live a life more innocent and blameless, to the Glory of God, and the eternal welfare of our own Souls. But the damned, who are already at their journey's end are in an unchangeable and lasting condition; and their wills are immutably fixed upon evil, and that continually: For, 1. As the Wills of the Glorified are immutably good; so those of the damned are unchangeably evil. 2. Without the enabling grace of God, no Man's Will can be morrally and properly Good; but the damned neither have nor hope for Sanctifying Grace in their Hearts, each of them outvying one another in spewing out their Venomous and spiteful malice against their Creator. And this the Schoolmen generally approve, Aquin. count. Gent. lib. 4. cap. 93. ibid. Ferrariensis. And Aquin. in 4. dist. 50. q. 2. art. 1. Aquar. in Addit. ad Capre. in 4. dist. 50. Concl. 1. Upon all which, I conclude my last reason to be still firm, and valid for the proving my assertion, viz. That condition is reasonably more eligible, in which there is nor can be no sin; than that which in the mind of the Creature is so unchangeably bound up to, and steadfastly established in exerting eternal malice against God, that it cannot but Sin: But the Annihilated neither doth, nor can sin, and the damned cannot abstain from Sinning; therefore the state of the former is more eligible than that of the Latter.  
Reason. III. That being or Essence which the damned enjoy, is not indulged them for any Good, but for a subject and foundation of eternal Torments: So that in conformity to right reason, it is better to have no being at all, than to possess it only in order to be thereby rendered capable subjects of infinite and insupportable Tormnts; and fit objects of the eternal vengeance of the Almighty. Who would not rather wish to have no Tongue at all, than to have it, (as Dives in the Parable) for no other end than to be in everlasting tormenting pains?  
Reason. iv That must be the greatest Evil which destroys the greatest Good, (for the greatness of the evil must still be esteemed by the value of its opposite Good) so blindness is a less evil than infidelity, because the good of which infidelity is a privation, viz. Faith, is a greater good and more valuable than seeing, which is the opposite of blindness; (this being but a natural faculty, whereas the other is a supernatural and divine gift) but damnation overthrows a greater good than annihilation does: for annihilation is only opposed unto the finite and Created good of the Creature, which it is only capable to destroy, but damnation is a privation of the greatest, chiefest, and increated good; As,  
1. It deprives the Creature of that Beatifical Vision, in which the fruition of God consists.  
2. It superadds a great evil, a malum culpae, even that eternal malice which they are perpetually willing against God. And Consequently, since damnation deprives the Creature of a greater good than annihilation, it must be an higher evil of a more intense degree.  
Doubt. But peradventure some may reply, that the annihilated is deprived of the beatifical Vision of God as well as the damned; and therefore, since annihilation destroys the good both of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 benè esse, the Creature in that state cannot enjoy God, no more than the damned; and consequently the annihilated are in a worse condition than the damned; for the damned enjoy the good of existence, while the annihilated are deprived of the same.  
Answ. In Answer to which I say, that in those that are annihilated, there is indeed a want of that Beatifical Vision, but no privation; it being only a Negative kind of absence and not privative: And there is nothing more common in Philosophy, than that the want of the Beatifical Vision is not accounted to be evil, unless it be a privative want: As for example, there is a Negative want of the beatifical Vision is a Stone, that is, the Stone doth not enjoy that Vision; but this is not evil in respect of the Stone; Because all evil is Carentia boni in subjecto c●paci, the want or defect of Good in a subject that is capable to enjoy the same; now a Stone is not a subject capable of this Beatifical Vision. So in him that is annihilated, there is a Negation or Negative absence and non-fruition of the chiefest Good; for he does not nor cannot positively enjoy God; But there is not a privation, or privative absence, which alone can be invested with the notion of Evil. The Reason of all is clear; for the annihilated is a simple nonentity, uncapable to be the subject of Good; since bonum and ens, are convertible terms; so that where there is no entity (as it is in the case of annihilation) it is impossible there should be any good: And as for the consequent, that the absence of the beatifical Vision in the annihilated is not evil, that is clearly deducible from what hath been said, since that absence is not privative (as all evil is) but negative. Ergo, etc.  
Reason. V To prove yet further that Annihilation is not an evil worse than damnation, I argue in the fifth place, thus: There can be no evil greater than the greatest; (for it is a contradiction in terminis to say that, there can be an evil worse than the worst of Evils; since that cannot be in a Superlative degree the worst, than which there may be a worse assigned;) But in the case of the damned there is the greatest evil that can be, viz. the privation of the Beatifical Vision, and the non-fruition of the chiefest Good for the privation of the chiefest and greatest good must be the greatest evil; since the greatness of the evil (as I hinted before) must be estimated by the value of its opposite object, of which it is a privation. So that if damnation be followed with the highest and greatest evil, than annihilation cannot infer a greater, and by consequence annihilation is not an evil worse than damnation: quod erat demonstrandum.  
Reason VI I am now arrived at my sixth and last Argument; in managing which, I shall observe this order.  
1. I shall premise some few things necessary. and 2. I shall deduce my Argument in Order.  
Wherefore in the first place I say, That Evil wherewithal the Eternally Damned are afflicted is in some measure infinite, and is of two kinds; for there is 1. Malum culpae, the evil of sinning against God, and 2. Malum poenae, the evil of punishment.  
1. That evil of Sin which the damned undergo, or rather commit, is perpetual blasphemy against God; (as some of the Sohool-men prove, from Rev. 16.11. And blasphemed the God of Heaven because of their pains and their sores. Which place tho' it be not properly applicable to the infernal pains, but to the punishments inflicted on the Members of Antichrist; yet it may after an analogical and proportional manner be not a little serviceable to the business in hand; and I deduce it thus: If the pains and sores inflicted on Men in this Life, do incite and move their polluted lips to utter blasphemies against God himself, how much more shall the pains of Hell, and the exquisite torments of the Infernal Lake produce the like effect? For if from pains and sores blasphemies do arise (as this Text saith they do) then the more intense and exquisite these pains and torments be, the greater shall that blasphemy be that springeth from thence: But the highest pitch of painful misery, and the most intense degree of Torment shall be in Hell; therefore the blasphemies against God shall there be screwed up to the greatest height.) This perpetual blasphemy (I say,) accompanied with eternal despair, and an inveterate malicious hatred against God, is that in which this malum culpae consists. Vid. Aquin. count. Gent. lib. 4. cap. 93. ibid. Ferrar. & in 4. dist. 50. q. 2. art. 1. Aquar. in addit. ad Capreol. in 4. dist. 50. concl. 1. etc.  
2. The Malum poenae, or evil of punishment, which the damned undergo, is twofold,  
Viz. 

1. The Evil of Sense, and this is the most intense positive degree of torment, at least a very great one, and is still proportioned to the nature and heinousness of the sin or sins for which the punishment is inflicted.  
2. The Evil of loss, and this is the non-fruition of the chiefest good, viz. the want and privation of the Beatifical vision.    
These premised, I assert that each of these Evils is in some measure infinite: for  
1. The Evil of Sin (being committed against an infinite God) is denominated infinite from the  relation it bears to its infinite object.  
2. The Evil of punishment (viz. of Loss, not of Sense) is in like manner infinite, since it consists in the privation of the Beatifical Vision, or the non-fruition of an infinite good.  
3. The Evil of punishnment (viz. of Sense) tho' it is not positively infinite in respect of its intensity or degrees, since the finite Creature is not a subject capable; yet it is the most exquisite, intense, positive and everlasting extremity of torment that the miserable creature can possibly undergo.  
4. All these abovementioned Evils are each of them infinite in duration, since they shall never be at an end, but endure through all the Ages of Eternity for ever and ever.  
Now if we consider all these Evils as concentred in one and the same subject, we may easily apprehend how vastly great and intolerable that punishment will be, which shall torment the damned for ever.  
Conclus. II. In the second place I premise this Conclusion, viz. In the state of annihilation there is no Evil at all, but only a simple and bare negation of good. And that we may understand this more fully, we are to observe all, That all Evil is the want of some Good or Perfection: but there is a twofold want of perfection.  
1. Negative, which is only a mere negation or non existence of the perfection. In a Lion there is the want of Reason, Faith, and Felicity, for these are not in the Lion: but this want is not evil, because these are no perfections due or requisite unto the Lion, and besides he is not a subject capable of them.  
2. Privative, which is not promiscuously the want of any perfection whatsoever, but only of that perfection which is due unto the subject: And this want is only the proper evil of the Creature. So if a Man want his sight, this is a privative want, and is evil to the Man, since seeing is a perfection belonging to him; but, tho' a stone want sight likewise, yet it is not an evil to the stone, since 'tis not any due perfection of a stone. In like manner in the annihilated Creature there is a want of Good (for there is no good in that state, neither indeed can be, since bonity and entity are reciprocal;) but this want is only negative, not privative, and consequently no evil.  
And this will appear more evident if we consider, 2dly, That every evil necessarily presupposes a subject to which it should be evil; according to that axiom of the Schoolmen, Omne Malum est in Bono; Every Evil resides in Good, that is, in an entity which enjoys the Metaphysical good of existence. This is also solidly demonstrated by Swarez Met. tom. 1. disp. 11. Aquin. 1. p q. 48. Ariminens. Durand. Estius and Bassol. in 2. dist. 34  
I shall deduce some few inferences from these evident Premises; and,  
1. If every evil presuppose the existence of a subject to which it should be Evil, than annihilation is no evil at all, since in the state of annihilation the subject remains not, but is actually destroyed.  
Infer. II. 2. If the Annihilation of Peter (v. gr.) were evil, (since every evil must be evil to some subject or other) it is either evil to himself or to another: But not to himself, because Peter when annihilated is a simple nonentity, and consequently not a subject capable of evil: and not to another; for evil which is the privation of good, cannot be lodged in any other subject than that in which the good was; as sight, it having its seat only in the eye, blindness its opposite evil cannot be any where else than in the eye; so, if bonity be an inseparable propriety of Ens, then evil cannot be entertained any where but there. Or the Argument may run thus; If the annihilation of Peter were evil to Peter himself, than it would ei●her be such while he is Peter, or while he is not Peter. But not while he is Peter, because while he is Peter he is not annihilated, and therefore it is impossible that annihilation should be evil to Peter, while he is Peter; since while he is Peter, there is no annihilation, and consequently he is not subject to the evil of the same. And neither can it be evil to him while he is not Peter, because Evil (as I said before) cannot be lodged in a nonentity. And as for its being evil to another; that relates not to the business in hand, for if it be not evil to himself, I gain my point; since the Question is not whether it be better for another that a damned person he annihilated, or that he continue in the state of damnation; but which of them is better for the damned person himself.  
3. That which is not at all, cannot be in an evil condition; (for to be miserable, necessarily presupposes to be, Malè esse necessario praesupponit esse; as a Man cannot be in a good condition unless he exist or enjoy that being which is good;) but Peter when annihilated is a pure nothing; therefore he cannot be in an ill condition; and consequently annihilation cannot be an evil unto him. Or the Reason may be conceived thus: That cannot constitute a Man in an ill condition, which constitutes him a mere nothing: But Annihilation constitutes the Creature a mere nothing, Ergo, etc. And this is confirmed by Aquin. in Quodlib. q. 5. art. 3. Si omnia annihilarentur nullum esset malum, sicut non erat ullum malum ante creationem. If all things were annihilated, there would be no more evil in the World than there was before the Creation, which was none at all.  
Now I come to deduce my sixth Reason, and it is this.  
Reason VI That in which there is no Evil at all, is according to right reason more eligible than that in which an infinite number of evils are contained; But in the state of annihilation there is or can be no evil at all; and in the state of damnation there is a combination of evils in some measure infinite; (both parts of the minor are already demonstrated.) Therefore annihilation is preferable to damnation, and consequently it is more eligible not to be, than to be miserable. Quod erat demonstrandum.  
There is one thing here to be remarked, that while we say it is more eligible not to be, than to be miserable, this choosing of nonexistence, or wishing not to be, may undergo a twofold meaning.  
1. A man may be said to wish for nonexistence, so that he is ready to effectuate it himself, and advance his own annihilation as much as in him lies; and in this sense no Man should wish to be annihilated, viz. by his own procuring. The Reason is because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or self- murder is a summum nefas, a superlative Crime; which as we cannot do, so neither should we wish to be the doers of it: So that in this no man should wish rather to be annihilated than to be miserable.  
2. A Man may be said to wish for annihilation, not as if he were to be the doer of it himself, but (supposing God should leave him to his free choice) he would consent unto it, and be passive while another is performing the action.  
And in this sense we may say, it is more eligible not to be, than to be miserable, if both were considered absolutely in themselves, and if God should leave the damned Creature to its own free choice: But we do not assert that a man can actually and the facto wish for it. Vid Johan. Major. in 4. Sent. didst 50. q. 2. and Bassol. in 4. dist. 50. q. 1.  
The next thing that follows in order, is to consider Durandus his Objections to the contrary, which I shall 1. set down in their full force, and 2. shall answer them with as much brevity and withal perspicuity as possibly I can: and, to begin with the first, it is thss.  
Obj. I. If the Will of Man could wish for annihilation as the more eligible, than it would do it either as a natural appetite, or as a deliberative faculty; but not as the former, because a natural appetite is unchangeably and naturally bended to the preservation of its self; therefore it cannot wish for annihilation, which should necessarily destroy it: Neither can it do it as a deliberative faculty, because whatever a Man wishes for, as soon as he has obtained his wish, he is in a better condition than before; but when a Man has obtained his wish of annihilation he is in no better condition than before; for by the possession of it he not only acquires no new bonity, but likewise loses what he had before: Therefore none can reasonably account annihilation more eligible than eternal tormenting punishments.  
Answ. In Answer to which, I say, 1. That the Will as it is a natural faculty, or as it is carried out towards its object by an innate appetite, cannot wish for annihilation, for the Reasons specified in the Objection. And this is acknowledged by Francis. de Mayron. in 4 dist. 5●. q. 1. Although he be in this matter of an Opinion contrary to Durandus. But the Will as a deliberative faculty may very reasonably choose annihilation: and as to what is alleged to the contrary (viz. that a Man when annihilated is no better than he was before, therefore he cannot deliberately wish for annihilation.) I Answer, that the annihilated may be said to be in a better state than before, two ways, and that,  
1. Absolutely, and while considering annihilation abstractedly in itself, as if by annihilation he acquired some positive adventitious good, which he had not before; and in this sense, I confess the state of annihilation cannot be called better than that of damnation; because by annihilation the Creature is so far from purchasing to its self any new positive good, that it rather loses what it had before.  
2. Comparatively: and in this sense that state is best, which is followed with the least evil, tho' it procure no new good; As I suppose a Man tormented with the evil of exquisite torturing pains, if one or two degrees of that evil were detracted, the Man would be in a better Condition than formerly, not absolutely as if he gained any new positive good which he had not before, but comparatively, his evil being diminished from what it was before. So we call a Feather lighter than Iron, that is, less heavy; while in the mean time neither the one nor the other has any absolute positive levity in themselves: In like manner we assert that the Creature when annihilated is in a better condition than in the state of damnation; not absolutely, as if any positive good were superadded by annihilation; but comparatively by the removal of the evil: for the annihilated is subject to no evil at all, neither can he possibly be; Whereas the Damned is afflicted with Punishments in some measure infinite; ut suprâ dictum.  
Obj. II. Durandus urges in the second place thus; That which destroys the greatest good is the greatest evil; but annihilation destroys the greatest good; for it destroys both the good of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bene esse, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse, whereas the greatest extremity of misery destroys only the good of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bene esse, but does not in the least impair the good of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse; Ergo, etc. Besides every thing that bereaves the Creature, though of the least good, must be evil; and that which destroys the greater good, must be the greater evil; and consequently it is so in the Superlative Degree likewise, That which destroys the greatest good, must be the greatest evil: but Annihilation destroys the greatest good; therefore it is the greatest evil, and consequently is not worse than damnation; since an evil greater than the greatest is a palpable contradiction.  
Answ. This Argument is the only Achillaeum telum that Durandus lays his whole force upon, as being an infallible demonstration of his Thesis; this he looks upon as his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but though Ajax was stout, yet we know he was not endowed with the greatest Wisdom; and though Achilles was a man of great magnanimity and courage, yet he was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; both the former and the latter were obliged to succumb when their fatal hour was come. The same apprehension I have of this Argument, viz. That if it were canvased to the bottom, it would easily be discovered to be but a weak and tottering Foundation for him to build his Opinion upon.  
And that this may more fully appear, I answer, that, that is the greatest evil which destroys the greatest good, upon the supposition that the subject be still in being; but if the Subject be likewise destroyed, it is so far from being a greater evil, that it is none at all: An this is very evident, and founded upon solid Reason; for since all evil is a privation, it must necessarily have some Foundation or Subject to which it should be a privation; and this must be a positive, really, existent Subject; for good and evil are circa idem Subjectum, as all Privatives are with their respective opposites; But good cannot be lodged any where but in a real entity, it being the inseparable propriety of it: Therefore neither can evil be competent to any but a real entity.  
2. Every evil is evil to some body or other; but when Peter is annihilated, there is nothing unto which Annihilation should be evil, and consequently it is not evil at all.  
3. Evil is the privation of some due perfection, at that very same time that it is due; but at that time that Peter is annihilated, there is no perfection due to him; therefore at that time no evil can be competent to Peter, viz. when annihilated. So that I acknowledge, that whatever destroys good is evil, and whatever destroys the greater good, is the greater evil; and so forth, as long as the Subject remains; but not if the Subject itself be destroyed. And therefore it is that Capreol. in 2. d. 34. p. 1. and Bass. ibid. assert, that the essence of Plato (v. gr.) hath not any evil for its opposite; and for this cause annihilation cannot be evil unto him. And this I shall further illustrate by an Example or two.  
As (to use the Comparison of Ariminensis in 2. dist. 34) we know that tardè, tardiùs, tardissimè, do still presuppose a motion, which is tardus, tardior, tardissimus: I cannot say that one thing is slower than another, unless I suppose them both to be moving; no more can I call one evil greater than another, unless I presuppose something to which it should be a greater, of greatest evil. For if I should say, that one who takes up a great while in passing over a little parcel of Ground, moves but slowly; and that another who takes up as much time in passing over a less piece of Ground, moves more slowly; in this the consequence is good: But if I should infer, that therefore he who passes over no ground at all, moves slowest of all, the consequence is null; for he who passes over no space, moves not at all.  
Again, if I should say, where there is a privation of a degree of light, there is a Shadow; therefore where there is a privation of a greater degree, there is a greater umbrage; in this I say right, because a Shadow is the privation of light. But if I should infer that therefore where there is a privation of all light whatsoever, there is the greatest Shadow; I should be justly censured with a nonsequitur; because where there is no light at all, there is no shadow neither, nor any thing but thick and perpetual darkness; for a shadow presupposes also a secondary kind of light: In like manner, I say, the privation of any good is evil; and the privation of any greater good is a greater evil; but I cannot say that the privation of all and every good, is the greatest evil of all; because all evil must be lodged in some good, or bonum (viz. ens) as in its Subject or Foundation: So that if the Subject perish, it cannot be an evil. This is confessed by Durand. ubi supra; and is forcibly evinced by Suarez, Met. Tom. I. disp. 11. Aquin. 1. p. q. 48.  
Object. 3. Durandus objects in the third place; Annihilation is no manner of way eligible, therefore it cannot be more eligible than misery: The reason of the antecedent is, because Annihilation has nothing of good in it, since all good presupposes a subject to which it should be good, and in which it should rest as on a foundation; and Annihilation, which is the adequate and total destruction of the subject, cannot partake of any such thing.  
Answ. I Answer first, If every good presuppose some subject to which it should be good (quod & verissimum) then by the same Analogy of reason every evil presupposes a subject to which it should be evil; so that since Annihilation presupposes no subject, but on the contrary destroys it, than it cannot be evil, and far less the greatest evil, which Durandus contends for.  
I Answer secondly, A thing may be said to be good two ways.  
1. Absolutely, or Positively.  
2. Relatively or Comparitively, viz. with respect to some other thing.  
As for the first, we call that absolutely good which contains in itself some positive bonity; and in this sense Annihilation is not good, as the Objection says true.  
As to the second, we call a thing good, which, though it include no positive bonity, yet in respect of another is a lesser evil: so Annihilation, though it be not positively and by itself good, yet when compared to Damnation, which is a greater evil, it is good, as being the lesser evil. In this sense we call the middle Region of the Air the coldest, because it is least hot; and water is said to be lighter than the Earth, or Led than Gold; not as if either the Lead or the Water were absolutely light, (for they are Bodies positively and in themselves heavy;) but comparatively, that is, the Water is less heavy than the Earth, and the Lead than the Gold; and upon this account only are they said to be lighter After the same manner is Annihilation said to be better than Damnation, not absolutely, as if there were any positive inherent bonity in Annihilation; but only comparatively, that is, Annihilation, when compared to Damnation, is a less evil, or not evil at all.  
Object. 4. It is better to have some bonity, or perfection, than to have none at all: But the Damned have some perfection (a substantial and real essence) and the annihilated have none at all: Therefore it is better to be Miserable, or Damned, than not to be.  
Answ. I Answer, that the perfection, or bonity, which is competent to the Damned, may be considered two ways, viz.  
1. Absolutely and in itself, as a substantial and real perfection, and in this I confess it is better to have that perfection, than to have none at all, if ye consider it precisely by itself; but,  
2. If it be considered comparatively, and with respect to its adjunctum, viz. that evil which is conjoined to it as its inseparable Companion; then, I say, it is better to want that goodness, than to enjoy it thus qualified with such bitter Ingredients; efpecially since this their good, viz. existence is only indulged them for this end, that it may be a foundation, or subject receptive of eternal Torments and inexpressible Misery, which shall never have an end.  
But Durandus, perhaps may reply, that there is a double evil which befalls the Damned, viz. Malum culpae, and malum poenae. But the former, viz. malum culpae, or sinning against God, does not properly belong to Damnation, but only secundario & per accidens, as not depending effectively of God, nor yet arising from the will of him who damns, but entirely owing its original to the obstinate and perverse will of the Damned; so that the second only, viz. malum poenae, or the evil of punishment properly, absolutely, and per se belongs to the state of Damnation, as being justly inflicted by God himself, who is the efficient cause, Author and original of the same.  
Then Durandus argues thus: The misery which the Damned endure, as it includes the complication both of malum culpae and poenae, is indeed worse than Annihilation: But if it be considered properly, and as it is in itself, viz merely penal, without respect to the criminal part of it, which is but an occasional accessary, than it is better to undergo this misery than to be annihilated.  
1. In Answer to this I assert,  
1. That this is truly Durandus' Opinion, though every one do not observe it, as may easily be collected from himself in 4 dist. 16. q. 1. where he proves, that it is better to be annihilated than to sin.  
2. But this seems to me rather a concession of, than an impugning the question; for the state of the question is this: If it be better to be Damned, (that is, undergo all the Miseries of that Life and Condition, that the Damned are actually possessed of) than to be annihilated? So that, since all the Damned must necessarily undergo the malum culpae, or poenae, it is a very natural consequence, that it is better to be Annihilated than to be Damned; that is, to sin against God, (which Durandus himself acknowledges) since no Creature can be Damned, and in the mean time be excused from sin.  
3. In the third place I argue thus, (and this is Argumentum ad hominem:) If it be a greater evil to sin, than to be annihilated (as Durandus says it is) than it shall either be such, because of the offence done to God, or because of the Wrath of God that has followed thereupon, or because of the punishment of loss or sense inflicted on the sinner for the same; or lastly, because of the sin itself, which considered by itself is a greater evil than Annihilation. Now which so ever of these Durandus chooses, he will be at a loss. For,  
1. If he says, that it is a greater evil to sin, than to be Annihilated, because of the offence done to God; then, say I, it is better to be Annihilated than to be Damned, because God is offended at, and continually wroth with the Damned; for if the offence done unto God make sin a greater evil than Annihilation, then in like manner shall the offence done unto God by the sins of the Damned, and the displeasure of God hanging perpetually over their Heads for the same, make Damnation a greater evil than Annihilation; which according to Durandus' Principles, is absurd.  
2. If he say that sin is a greater evil than Annihilation, because of the Wrath of God that has followed thereupon; then by the same analogy of reason, it shall follow, that Damnation is a greater evil than Annihilation, because of the burning hot Furnace of God's Wrath, which has already overtaken the Damned, and shall for ever endure against them.  
3. If he says that sin is a greater evil than Annihilation, because of the punishment inflicted on the sinner for the same; then Damnation is for the same very reason, a greater evil than Annihilation: For if any kind of punishment make sin a greater evil than Annihilation, shall not that high degree of Torment which the Damned endure for ever, much more oblige Damnation to be worse than Annihilation?  
4. And Lastly, If he say, that sin in itself is a greater evil than Annihilation, I accord unto the same; but then I subsume, If sin itself be a greater evil than Annihilation, than that punishment which the Damned are afflicted with, being a greater evil than sin considered precisely in itself, must be likewise a greater evil than Annihilation. Now I prove, that the punishment of the Damned is a greater evil than sin, considered in itself; because the greatness of the evil is estimated by the value of the opposite good which it destroys; but the punishment of the wicked destroys a greater good than sin does; for sin, considered formally in itself, is nothing else but privatio rectitudinis debitae inesse Creaturae, the privation of that rectitude which is due unto the Creature, which is but a finite good; whereas the punishment of loss inflicted on the Damned (not to speak of the punishment of sense) deprives the Creature of the chiefest and infinite good, viz. the Love of God and the Enjoyment of him for ever; and consequently is a greater evil to the Creature than sin considered in itself, which is only the privation of a finite good.— So that after all, it evidently appears, that if Durandus can make his Assertion good, That to be guilty of sinning against God, is a greater evil than Annihilation, he may easily perceive the truth of my Assertion, That to be Damned, is a greater evil than to be Annihilated: Quod erat demonstrandum.  
And here, to satisfy Durandus' fancy, we shall abstract from the criminal and sinful part of the eternal Punishments betiding the wicked, and shall only fix our thoughts on that malum poenae, wherewithal God afflicts them. And then the state of the Question shall be this; If that malum poenae (abstracted from the malum culpae) which the wicked are liable unto, be so great a punishment, that is were better to be Annihilated, than endure the same? So that the Question hangs upon this; If malum poenae be a greater evil than bonum essentiae is a good: For if it be then it is better to be Annihilated, and by virtue thereof to be freed from the greater evil, than to be Damned, and enjoy the smaller bonum essentiae, followed with a greater evil. Wherefore I here subjoin my last Conclusion.  
Concl. 7. It is better, and in conformity to right reason, more eligible to be Annihilated, than to undergo the evil of punishment, (though separated from the evil of sin) that the Damned are Tormented withal.  
I shall in the first place explain my Conclusion, and then prove it.  
1. That evil of punishment which the wicked undergo, may be considered two ways;  
1. As it flows from the Will of God, justly ordaining the wicked to undergo eternal Punishment: And in this sense it is certain, that the Damned person, if he regulate his Will according to the Dictates of rectified reason, cannot wish rather to be Annihilated; because he cannot reasonably wish the contrary of what God justly wills and ordains: for if God, according to the rules of the most exact Justice, will that they should undergo eternal punishment, they cannot justly will to be Annihilated, and not to undergo this their just retribution; as is proved by Bonav in 4. dist. 50. q. 2. and Jo. Maj. in 4 As also in dist. 50. q. 2.  
2. This evil of punishment may be considered precisely as it is in itself, without respect to God's appointment; and in this sense it is more eligible to be annihilated, than to endure such Inexpressible Torments.  
Wherefore to gratify Durandus' Curiosity, we shall make the sta●e of the question this viz. If the evil of punishment, (when abstracted both from the malum culpae, and the Divin● appointment about the undergoing of the same) be of itself so intolerable, and hideously great, that it were better to be Annihilated than undergo the same; upon the supposition that God should allow the Creature its free choice— I assert, That the evil of punishment is so very great, that it were better for the person affected with the same to be Annihilated, than to continue in the endurance of it.  
And this I prove,  
Reas. 1. Because Annihilation is the lesser evil, and therefore should be preferred: I prove the Antecedent; because the bonum essentiae, which the Damned enjoy, is a less good, or minus in ratione boni, than the evil of punishment is in ratione mal●. The Reason is evident, viz. because every evil is estimated by the value of the good, of which it is a privation; but the evil of eternal punishment, is the privation of a greater good than bonum essentiae; therefore the evil of eternal punishment, is a greater evil than the good of being is a good. For the good of being is only a finite and created good; whereas the good, whereof the malum poenae is a privation, is the fruition of God, who is goodness in the abstract, being the highest, infinite, and increated good; and since there can be no good so high as the highest, the good of essential being cannot be so great. But if the good destroyed by the evil of punishment, be greater than the bonum essentiae, than this evil is greater in genere mali, than the bonum essentiae is in genere boni; and consequently Annihilation is rather to be chosen than undergoing the evil of punishment: Quod erat demonstrandum.  
Reas. 2. If the good of being were a greater good than the Beatifical Vision, and Enjoyment of God (of which the evil of punishment is a privation) than the Devils themselves who are bound up in the eternal Chains of Darkness, should enjoy a greater good than all the Glorified Saints, who are in Heaven; for if the being of a Man be a good greater than the Enjoyment of God, much more the nobler essence of an Angel, which the wretched Devils enjoy: and yet to say, that they enjoy a greater good, than the Love of God, and the eternal Enjoyment of him; such an Assertion as this, I say, is too blasphemous and absurd to be refuted; Ergo, etc.  
Reas. 3. If the good of existence, which the Damned possess, were a greater good, than their evil of punishment is an evil, than they cannot be in the greatest extremity of Misery, yea, they cannot be said to be in an ill condition; for since the denomination takes its rise from the greater part, how can we call that Creature miserable, or in an ill condition, which enjoys more degrees of good than evil. As for example, I cannot denominate that water cold, which has in it more degrees of heat than of cold; for it should rather be denominated hot, from the major part, viz. the heat, which is more intense than the cold. So in the case of the Damned, if the good they enjoy be greater than the evil that is inflicted on them, they should rather be in a good condition than an ill; because the good being greater than the evil, should impart its denomination to the whole, as being the major part. But in the mean time we are ascertained, that the Damned are in an evil and very miserable condition, so that their evil is greater than their good; therefore it is more eligible to be Annihilated, and thus be freed from this preponderating evil, than to enjoy the lesser good of duration still followed with such insupportable misery: Quod erat demonstrandum.  
Now from all that has been said, we may evidently deduce these following Conclusions.  
1. That Annihilation, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non esse, contains no positive, absolute bonity in and by itself.  
2. That if only the manifestation of God's Glory were respected, it were more eligible to be condemned to eternal Misery, than to be reduced to nothing; because there is more of God's Glory manifested in the just punishment of a sinner, than in the simple Annihilation of the same.  
3. That in the judgement of the Miserable Man himself, it shall seem to him more eligible to be Annihilated, than thus to continue in everlasting misery.  
4. That if we consider the essence and being of the Damned, precisely in itself, and as abstracted from the evil that attends the same, it were more eligible to enjoy that being, than to be Annihilated.  
5. That if we consider that being, or existence as unavoidably clogged with eternal Misery, it were better and more eligible to be Annihilated and want that being, and by so doing be freed from their Misery, than to continue in the perpetual endurance of the same: And for the proof of this, I have annexed six pregnant Reasons to confirm my Assertion.  
6. As also in the sixth place have answered the Objections proposed to the contrary. And,  
7. I have shown, That though Durandus may allege for the defence of his assertion, That, if we consider only the penal evil of the Damned, it is more eligible to be Damned than Annihilated; yet this subterfuge can afford him no succour. For,  
1. This is rather to concede the Question, than to state it more cautiously for defending himself.  
2. Though we should consider only the penal part of eternal Misery, yet it is better to be Annihilated, than undergo it by itself, though separated from the evil of sinning.  
8. That with respect to the positive will of God, determining and allotting the Creature to eternal Misery, it is not more eligible, nor to be desired by the miserable Creature to be Annihilated, rather than undergo and suffer what is the good and just Pleasure of God concerning it. But if in the second place we should consider the evil of Damnation precisely in itself, and supposing that God should leave the Creature to its free choice; then, and in that case, I say, Annihilation is more rationally to be chosen than Damnation.  
And thus at length have we happily extricated ourselves from all the Difficulties, Labyrinths, and Meanders, that the resolution of this intricate Question hath unavoidably engaged us in: If these our Conclusions laid down by us, do after a serious and impartial Consideration appear to be grounded on a sufficient and solid reason, i● is well; if not, we impose upon none. I do not pretend to be too positive in the resolution of the Question, but I have adduced what Reasons seem most probable unto me, and those I submit to the censure of my Reader. I am sensible enough that Durandus, and many others of good note, have stood up for the contrary Opinion; and therefore I entertain some jealousy of mine own assertion; because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and am obliged to say, (as once Gonnadius on another occasion) I con●ess it is not probable that such great Doctors have erred in this matter, yet nevertheless it is not impossible: I shall not be positive in asserting whether they have erred, or no, but refer all to the impartial and unbyass'd dijudication of the Judicious and Intelligent Reader.   

An ABSTRACT of EXERCITATION IU. viz. Concerning the Existence of God.  
In which is demonstrated, that there is some knowledge of God attainable here by the Light of Nature; as also the means and helps that are conducive to assist and further us in this our Knowledge are plainly set down; together with a full and satisfactory Answer to that Question; How far this Natural Knowledge of God can possibly reach; or how much of him is cognoscible by the Light of Nature?  
Assertion First. THAT there is some knowledge of God attainable here in this Life, by the Light of Nature: For the further understanding of which, we are to observe.  
Note 1. That by God here I understand the only true God, who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God, in opposition to the false, Idolatrous and Superstitious Gods of the Gentiles.  
Note 2. That by the Light of Nature here is excluded,  
1. The Light of Glory, whereby the glorified Saints do know God as he is in himself, and see him face to face, without any intervening Obstacle.  
2. The Light of immediate infusion, or lumen gratiae; whereby God challenges from men an assent unto, and firm belief of his Existence, from the immediate operation of his Spirit on their hearts.  
3. The Light of Revelation, which is acquired by the Book of the Scriptures, in which God has been graciously pleased to discover himself unto men: And this is competent to evil men also; but the former is appropriated to the godly alone.  
Note 3. That by the Light of Nature we do not mean any innate Light, which follows us from the Womb, as if it were natural ratione subjecti, or respectu modi inhaesionis in subjecto: For no knowledge either actual or habitual can be natural in that sense; since man has not the actual exercise of Reason from his Cradle, and so not capable of actual innate knowledge of God; and as for Habitual it is evidently included in the formal Essence of all Habits (except infused, such as this Natural Light is supposed not to be) that they are not innate, but adventitious, and acquired by frequently repeated Acts. My Assertion being thus explained, I proceed to the probation of the same: And that by  
Reason I. From Rom. 1.19. Where the Apostle speaking of the Gentiles, argues thus: Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. Now the Apostle plainly insinuates that something of God is known unto the Gentiles, and that by the Light of Nature; for they could not know it by the help of any Revelation; Since Scripture they had none; and as for immediate Revelation, who did ever assert that God h●d immediately revealed himself to all the Gentiles (of whom the Apostle here speaks?) So that it was only by the Light of Nature that God was manifest in them. Besides, no Light of Revelation could have made God manifest in them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: for fides revelata, (as Estius well observes) carries not along with it that demonstrative evidence, which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports. But the Apostle hmself hath put it beyond all doubt, while he expresses in the next Verse the way and means whereby they came to this Knowledge, viz. by the contemplation of the Creatures; For the invisible things of him from the Creation of the World are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, etc. which infallibly determines the Question; that it was only by the Light of Nature that the Gentiles knew God.  
Reason 2. The general consent of all Nations in acknowledging a God, is an infallible demonstration that they knew him by the Light of Nature; since it is in itself evident (and I have already proved, that) they had no knowledge of God imparted to them by the means of any supernatural Revelation. And this their Universal Knowledge of God, yea, and of almost all his absolute Attributes, is so fully attested by all Writers on that Subject, and so evidently deducible from the Say and Writings of the Heathens themselves (such as Tully, Homer, Hesiod, Plato, etc.) That it shall be needless here to heap up Testimonies to that effect.  
Reason III. There is nothing more evident from the Dictates of Right Reason (which are nothing else but the immutable Law of Nature) than that God is to be worshipped; and consequently that there is a God; since the one follows so necessarily upon the other. That there is this general Principle in the minds of all men, the most barbarous and unpolished Nations do abundantly attest, who in every Age have had their Gods, and worshipped the same; as is evident from the late Discoveries we have made, even in this our own Age, amongst the most barbarous Indians. So that though the understanding of man be darkened by the Fall, yet this General Principle, That God is, and is to be worshipped, (though the true manner of the Worship of God be not discovered) is so firmly rooted in his mind, and is as the primum principium, or prima veritas infixed upon his Understanding, that it still remains discernible amongst the Rubbish of decayed Nature; yea, as long as the least spark of understanding is left him, he cannot but conclude that God is, and is to be worshipped. For, as the sense of touching, though much decayed, yet if the least degree of Sensibility be left, it cannot but feel the heat of a hot Fire, when it approaches to the same, because calor is objectum tactûs fortissimè motivum: So is it in the understanding of man, with respect to this General Principle; which is its prima veritas, and objectum fortissimè motivum.  
Obj. But the Atheists know no God; therefore that Principle is not so firmly rooted in the heart of every man.  
Answer I. This Objection (though true) would not invalidate my Assertion: For I assert only, that there is some knowledge of God attainable by the Light of Nature; which though the Atheists (perhaps through their neglect of the means appointed by Nature for that effect) have never attained unto, yet it may still be attainable by others; or by them, if they apply themselves to it.  
Answ. II. There are several kinds of Atheists.  
1. Some are Atheists in practice only, who live as if there were not a God.  
2. In practice and professed Principles too; who yet in their heart believe no such thing.  
3. In Practice, Profession and Desire or wishes; who wish that there were no God; and yet their heart contrary to their Practice and Profession dictates unto them that there is a God.  
4. There is a kind of Atheists, who are called Speculative Atheists, who really and in their heart judge that there is no God: And of these, I say, that no man can by a constant, perpetual, imprejudicate, and uninterrupted dijudication conclude that there is no God; for though he may for a time, or while biased by prejudice or passion assert some such thing; yet some time or other that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will discover itself, and the excusing and accusing Conscience will stare him in the face. But we shall have occasion afterwards to discourse more at large concerning Atheists.  
Reason IU. We while in the state of Innocence could know God by our Natural Light: But by our Fall, though our Natural Light be much impaired, yet it is not totally eradicated, but some glimmerings are still left us: Therefore some knowledge of God, though imperfect, is likewise left us, as attainable by that small degree of Natural Light which we still possess: For God being the Principium primarium, and objectum intellectûs fortissimè motivum, as long as there is any degree of light left, as that thereby we can discover any thing, we cannot but see that there is a God: As if we should suppose any thing endowed with a perfect clear sightedness, in order to view the Sun and the Stars; and if all that sight were decayed, excepting only one degree, it might perhaps n●● perceive the lesser Stars, which have a weaker impression on the Organ of seeing; but as for the Sun, which is the objectum visûs fortissimè motivum, it could not but have some small and imperfect perception of it, as long as the least degree of sight were left it. So it is with the understanding of Man in relation to God; which though it cannot perceive many other lesser truths; or though it cannot perceive God, who is the prima veritas, in as perfect a manner as it did in the State of Innocence; yet having some small degree of Natural Light still remaining, it possesses some imperfect perceptive knowledge of that Sun of Righteousness, who is the objectum intellectualis visûs fortissimè motivum.  
Having thus dispatched my First Assertion, that there is a Natural Knowledge of God, I come now to my Second, concerning the Quality and manner of this Knowledge; and it is this,  
Assertion II. This Knowledge which we have of God by the Light of Nature, is not acquired by any Demonstration à priori and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they call it: That is, such a Demonstration as proves the Effect by its Natural Causes.— This Conclusion is so evident, that it needs no probation: For since God is the first cause of all things, where can we find a principle or cause prior to him, whereby to demontrate his Existence a priori? Besides, what kind of cause would that be, which is demonstrative of God's Existence a priori? An Internal Cause it cannot, because God, who is simplicity in the abstract admits of no Natural or Formal Causes: Neither is it external; because God who is the first efficient, and ultimate final cause of all things, can have none such prior to himself: For he who is eternal, can have no principium prius to himself, else he would not be eternal, since aeternitas dicit negationem principii. And if we should assign him any prior cause, all his infnitude should quickly fall to the ground; since it is inconsistent that an Infinite Being should any manner of way depend upon another.  
Obj. Objicit Suarez: Though we cannot demonstrate God a priori by his quiddity or essence as such; yet we may know him by his attributes: which (though really identificate) are by our reason conceived as distinct from, and in some manner prior to his Essence.  
Answ. The proving of God by his Attributes, is so far from being a demonstratio à priori, that it is rather a posteriori; for all Attributes are posterior to the essence; neither can we feign an Attribute, unless we suppose an Essence to which it should be an Attribute; so that if the attribute be only ratione distinctum from its Essence, it is ratione posterius; if it be re distinctum, it is à parte rei posterius.  
Assertion 3. That knowledge of God which is acquir" d by natural light, is not so comprehensive or adequate, as to include all the perfections of the Godhead: And that for these Reasons.  
Reason I. Because a finite faculty or power (such as the understanding of Man is) cannot comprehend an infinite being, there being no such proportion betwixt finitum and infinitum, as could allow an adequate comprehension.  
II. Adam in the state of innocence could not by his natural light adequately comprehend God and all his perfections, (for the reason already assigned) much less we the Posterity of fallen Adam who have but a small remainder of that light left us.  
III. If the natural understanding of Man could comprehend God adequately, than God could not know more of himself than Man does, who knows him adequately; sed hoc est absurdum; Ergo & illud ex quo sequitur.  
iv Our natural knowledge of God is drawn from the Contemplation of the Creature; but the Creature is not an effect adequate unto the power of God, (for he could have created many more Worlds than this, if he would) Therefore it cannot furnish us with an adequate knowledge of God.  
V We do not perfectly know the nature of the least Herb or pile of grass; how can we therefore pretend to know and comprehend fully the infinite and incomprehensible God?  
Assertion 4. The knowledge of God by the light of Nature, being so imperfect, as that it cannot comprehend, and be adequate unto the nature of God; is not of itself sufficient to inform us of the way and manner of that Worship, which we his Creatures own unto him.  
For the understanding of this we are to Observe  
Note 1. That Natural light teaches us indeed in the general that God is to be Worshipped: but, since it is God that requires, and is to be honoured by this Worship, it must depend upon his will what manner of worship we perform unto him: for if we should worship God in any manner or way that he has not prescribed, or wherewith he is not well pleased; it were better for us not to worship him at all: because this is only the mere privation of the Worship due by us to God; but the other is not only the privation of the due Worship, but likewise a superaddition of an idolatrous and superstitious performance.  
Note 2. That we cannot better know the will of God, concerning what worship he requires at our hands; than by the Covenant he hath made unto Mankind: Because therein God hath given promises unto Man, upon condition of his performance of that Worship, which he justly required of him; and for which we stand indebted to God, by virtue of that Covenant we have entered into with him.  
Note 3. There being but two Covenants betwixt God and Man, viz. the Covenant of Works or Nature, and the Covenant of Grace: I assert that the light of fallen Nature is not sufficient fully and exactly to direct us in the complete performance of that Worship, which is justly required of us by God in either of these two Covenants: And that for these following Reasons.  
Reason I. This Light of Nature is not sufficient to direct us in performing that Worship which we own to God, by virtue of the Covenant of Works or Nature: because the Worship that is due unto God by the Covenant of Nature, is a full and complete obedience to the Law of Nature; But our natural light cannot fully discover unto us what the Law of Nature is, (without the knowledge of which we cannot perfectly obey the same) for by the fall we have lost the greatest and best part of our Natural Light, and so have lost our knowledge of the Law of Nature; as cannot but be evident unto any that considers how the Heathen Nations have erred in Worshipping God according to the Law of Nature; yea, the most polished and civilised amongst them have run into the greatest depths of Idolatry and Superstition in offering up Sacrifices even to the Devil himself; and that not only the generality and commoner sort, but the 〈◊〉 Men and Sages amongst them, such 〈◊〉 aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, 〈◊〉 have joined issue with the same ridiculous way of Worship, concluding that thereby they performed acceptable service to the Gods.  
Reason II. The light of Nature which Adam had in the state of innocence, was no more than sufficient to direct him in the performance of that service he often unto God; for the gifts wherewithal God endowed Adam were not supers●●●es but necessary, and no more than sufficient for compassing their respective end●: so that tho' he had performed all the service and obedience that 〈◊〉 he 〈◊〉 of, it was no more than what was 〈◊〉: Now since the Light of Nature 〈◊〉 perfect and in the state of innocence was no more than sufficient, what can we imagine of our decayed, lapsed, and dim light, which comes so far short of the former? Whereas if it could teach us how to obey perfectly the Law of Nature, it should 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 own unto God by virtue of the Covenant of Grace: Because the Worship required therein is obedience unto God through Faith in Christ Jesus, taking hold of the promises tendered 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 performed; (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, than Pythagoras, Plato, Homer, Aristotle, etc. 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 discovered it by the light of Nature?  
Reason II. If the Mystery of the Trinity were cognoscible by the light of Nature, than 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 denied 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 itself 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' i● be not of itself 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' 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 deduced per modum Causalitatis; as, because I see such an effect, therefore I conclude there must be a Cause, endowed with Power, Wisdom, etc. 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, etc.  
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 accomplished 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, etc. 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, etc.  
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 than it did not so much as Dream of the Death of Christ for the sins of the World: Ergo, etc.  
Reas. iv The Redemption of the World by Christ depending upon and flowing from the mere good Will and Pleasure of God, could never have naturally been foreseen before it came, nor when accomplished understood by any, except those unto whom God graciously revealed the same. For how can any thing depending on God's free will be known by Natural Light, since all the natural knowledge we have of God, is by way of causality from the Creatures? But the free Redemption of the World by Jesus Christ, can never be deduced from the existence of the Creature, by way of causality; as though it be naturally known, that Man is a sinner and miserable, yet does it not follow that therefore God designs to redeem him by Christ; no more than from the misery of some of the Angels, can it be deduced that therefore God designs to redeem them by Christ.  
Besides, Man is fallen into this Misery by his own fault, and it were just with God to leave him to wallow in that Misery that he hath purchased to himself for ever; wherefore since God is no way obliged to Redeem Man, how can we make the Misery of the Creature an Argument that he has or had any actual design to redeem the same; yea, dato & non concesso, that our own Miseries could demonstrate that God had a design to free us from it, yet it could never discover that particular special way whereby our freedom is purchased, viz. by the Blood of Christ; since the infinite Wisdom of God, (if so it had pleased him) might have contrived many other ways and methods, whereby to relieve us from our natural Slavery and Thraldom.  
Reas. V We are not capable to know the free and deliberate purposes of Men, much less those purposes of God (all whose Counsels are unsearchable, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which depend on his mere free Will and Pleasure, unless he graciously vouchsafe to reveal the same unto us; for if we could by Natural Light discover this one decree, or purpose of the Redemption of Man by Christ, then by the same consequence we might naturally know all the hidden Decrees and Counsels of God: Quod est absurdo absurdius, Er. etc.  
Reas. VI That the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Redemption of the World by his Blood, is a Mystery above the reach of Humane Knowledge to perceive, is the constant echo of almost every Page in the N. Test. As St. Paul while speaking to the Colossians concerning the same, Col. 1.16. saith, Even the Mystery which hath been hid from Ages and Generations, but now is made manifest to his Saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the Glory of this Mystery, among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of Glory. And (according to St. Augustine) it is essential to a Mystery that it be only cognoscible by Revelation. But what more evident Testimony can there be, than the general contradiction these Doctrines met with from People of all Ranks, even in the Apostles days, not only the commoner sort, but even the greatest Doctors, and those who had most improved their Natural Reason, among the Athenians, Romans, Jews, etc. who laughed and flouted at the Apostles for Preaching such seemingly Irrational Doctrines. Vid. Acts 17.18, 19 20, 32.  
Objection. Many of the Heathens 〈◊〉 clearly printed at Christ by the mere 〈◊〉 of Nature; as may be seen by the Oracles of the Sibyllae, Zoroaster, Trismegistus, Hydaspes, Orpheus, etc. where we find many things concerning the Trinity of the Persons, the Redemption of the World by Christ, and many other Gospel Truths.  
Answ. 1. As to the Sybilline Oracles, there are a great many things go under that Name which are not genuine and true; such as that Sibylla was in the Ark with Noah in the time of the Deluge, (which is openly false, since Moses is generally acknowledged to be the Ancientest Writer; which he could not be, if Sibylla had been before him) that the Sibylline Oracles were written 500 Years after the beginning of the Grecian Empire (which would make the Oracles to be posteriour to the execution of the things themselves) though ye reckon the beginning of the Grecian Empire from what Date ye will) and many other such like palpable Errors; as Dionys. Halic. Cornelius Tacitus, and many others do abundantly evince.  
Nevertheless I acknowledge that there are many things concerning Christ which are really the genuine Offspring of Sibylla; such as the Verses of Sibylla Cumaea paraphrased by Virgil in his 4th Lelog. (the which though the Poet apply to Pollio's Son, yet they are properly and roundly applicable to none but Christ; as Eusebius shows at large in Orat. Constan. ad Sanct. Coel. cap. 20.) the Acrostic Verses of Sibylla Erythraea, set down by Eusebius, and demonstrated by him not to be spurious, which is likewise confessed by Dionys. Halicarn. These Acrostic Verses do so plainly point at Christ, that the Initial Letters make up these Words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour, Cross. But all this doth in nothing infringe my Assertion; because though Sibylla foretold Christ, yet it follows not that therefore she knew him by Natural Light, but only by Revelation: Hence the Sibyllae were generally accounted Prophetesses that spoke not according to their own Natural Light, but as they were inspired by God; and were termed by the Ancients, foeminae numine correptae, afflatae, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. as Lactantius, 
(a) Iust. l. 1. p. 23.  Eustathius, 
(b) ad Homer. B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Strabo, 
(c) Geogr. l. 14. p. 1614  Suidas, 
(d) Lib. 17. 171. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Mantacutius, 
(e) Apparat. 3. Num. 28.  etc. do plainly testify.  
Instatur. How comes it to pass, that Sibylla should speak more plainly of Christ, than the Prophets in the Old Testament? For the Psalmist says, Psal. 147.19, 20. He shown his word unto Jacob, his Statutes and Judgements unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any Nation, and as for his Judgements they have not known them. And the Apostle to the Collossians, ch. 1. v. 26, 27. calls the Incarnation of Christ, a Mystery hid from Ages.  
Answ. 1. Perhaps she might pronounce many things which she did not understand herself, as being designed for the future benefit of the Church, rather than her own; of this Opinion was Justin. Mart. and Montacutius in this compares her to Balaam's Ass: but Eusebius seems rather to incline unto this, that she spoke these Oracles only for her own private comfort and benefit, as being picked out by God for an Object, unto which he pleased to manifest himself, and impart the knowledge of the truth: Either of these is consonant enough with the Analogy of Faith, and the Justice of God, who discovers himself to whom he will, though out of the visible Communion of the Church Militant.  
2. When the Apostle says, the Incarnation of Christ was a Mystery hid from Ages; it is not to be understood as if it absolutely excluded all knowledge of that Mystery; for the Fathers under the Old Testament knew Christ, though darkly; and as it is elegantly expressed by the Apostle in Heb. 11.13. (where reckoning up a Catalogue of the Faithful Patriarches, he subjoins) These all Died in the Faith, not having received the Promises; but having seen them afar off, etc. that is; having had a weak, imperfect, and faint view of them, as we see things afar off. Yea, not only they, but the Gentiles had this dark knowledge of it, (as 
(a) Aquin. 2. 2. qu. 2. Art. 7. ad tertium.  Aquinas evidently proves from that saying of Job's, ch. 19 I know that my Redeemer liveth, etc. So that the meaning of this saying of the Apostle must be, that it was hid from Ages, with respect to the degree and manner of knowledge; since this Mystery was never so fully revealed and perfectly known till the coming of Christ, and was formerly kept secret; they saw it but very darkly, whereas we now enjoy a far clearer Light, which dispels those Mystical Clouds that formerly it was enveloped in.  
3. As for that saying of the Psalmist it cannot be understood as if the Nations were totally ignorant of the Divine Law, since they had the Law of Nature, and Moral Law, written upon their Hearts by God's own Finger: And yet still there is a sufficient difference betwixt the Jews and the Gentiles, which might give the Psalmist occasion to say, He hath not dealt so with any Nation, etc. For  
1. The Jews had a Judicial and Ceremonial Law given unto them immediately from God, which the Gentiles had not.  
2. They had not only a natural and inbred knowledge of the Moral Law, as the Gentiles had; but besides, a relation from God distinctly explicating and unfolding all the parts and dictates of the same, which blind and imperfect Nature could not discover.  
3. They had a Priesthood of God's own appointment, and Prophets of his mission, who might constantly reveal the Will of God unto them, whereas the Gentiles had no such thing; yea, these same very Oracles that they had from the Sibyllae, were but once in an Age; so that few or none that heard of them understood what they meant, as is evident from the Doctissimus Poeta Virgil his mis-applying the Sibyllick Cumean Verses to Pollio's Son.  
So much for the Sibyllae.  
As for the other Instances of Trismegistus, Hydaspes, Orpheus, etc. I Answer.  
3. That if time would allow me to examine their particular Writings, I should find many things spurious and false especially in Trismegistus; but this I do not stand upon: Wherefore, I say, that though they knew many things concerning Christ, yet it follows not, that therefore they knew it by Natural Light, but that they had it either from the immediate Revelation of God, who, (as Justinus well observes) has so well provided for his Church, that out of the Heathens their own Writings, there may be Weapons taken to discomfit and refute them; or from the Jews, to whom they are beholden for many things. Clem. Alex. copies a great many things out of Deuteronomy concerning. Go●; and says, that Plato did the same. Basil. Magn. says, that they stole a great many things from the Scripture, and adopted them for their own: Diodorus Siculus talks of Moses having his Laws from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; yea the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was so common among them, that one time recourse being had to the Oracles of Apollo, to know who of the Gods it was that was Named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it was answered them, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Jao is the chiefest of all the Gods.   
The Heathens did commonly borrow the Names of their Gods from the Hebrew, as Bacchus was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Hebrew word Jah, which with the Greek Termination and Pronunciation added, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and their exultation word at his Feasts was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, corresponding to the Jewish Hallelujah. Many such Instances might be given, that the Gentiles borrowed many things from the Jews; so that it is not probable they had the knowledge of these Divine Mysteries by Natural Light (which I have already proved to be impossible) but either by immediate Revelation from God, or by their knowledge of the Jewish Constitution and Customs.  
I come now to the Second thing proposed, viz. What are the Media whereby we arise unto this knowledge of God? For the better resolving of which, we are to know, that these Media are either inartificial, viz. such as depend upon no Art of Man; or artificial, viz. such as are invented or found out by some Humane Art, or Science: Wherefore  
I Assert 1. God is naturally cognoscible by inartificial means: By inartificial here I do not mean as they are proposed and made use of by Metaphysicians; for they can propose inartificial things in an artificial method; but in regard of an Ignorant Man, who though destitute of the knowledge of Arts and Sciences, can yet make use of this medium inartificiale, by which he attains to the natural knowledge of a God; and this Assertion is plain and evident if we consider;  
Reason. That the most Barbarous Nations, and unpolite People, (who knew no Arts nor Sciences, and consequently no Artificial Media) have known, acknowledged and Worshipped a God; As Tully in his lib. 1. de Nat. Deorum. & lib. de Legibus hath sufficiently demonstrate●; But Acosta & Benzonius, de rebus Indicis, have put this beyond all doubt; where, in the description of the lately discovered West-Indies, they show that this most Barbarous and rude People (yea scarcely Men except in their Visage) had their Gods, Temples, and ●ests; and amongst their many Gods they had one, whom they imagined above all the rest, who was omnipotent, and infinite; and unto whom all their Thoughts, Words, and Actions, tendered the highest Reverence and Adoration imaginable. Now since they were so rude and ignorant, and not capable of having Artificial means; How came they to know a God, but by Inartificial means, competent even to the most Illiterate and Ignorant sort?  
Assertion. II. Since God is naturally cognoscible by Inartificial means, much more by Artificial: For Arts are the improvement and perfecting of Nature; so that what may be without Art, cannot but be more perfectly accomplished, where the subsidiary help of Art is made use of. These Artificial Media, or Arguments whereby the Learned Artists demonstrate the Natural Knowledge of God, and his existence, are various and many: Yea, so great is the variety of these made use of by the Ancients; that some of them seem rather suasory than cogent. Wherefore I shall select only those that are most forcible and urgent, which are.  
Arg. I. All Entities in the World are either made or not made, (non datur medium;) But all and every one of them cannot be made; because they must either be made by themselves, or by another; but not by themselves, for then the cause and the effect would be the same; and, as all causes are at lest natura priores, and preaexistent to the effect which they produce, so this which made itself would be prior to itself; quod est absurdum. Wherefore those that are made must be made by another; and that other which made them, if it be not made at all, then there is a being increated independent, etc. Which we call God, Ergo, etc. But if it be made too; it cannot be made by itself; 〈◊〉 the Reason above assigned) so it must be made by another; but if by another, than the same difficulty arises about that other, and so forth in all the rest, till at length ye come to one above the rest which is not made at all; the which if there were not, there would be a progressus in infinitum.  
Arg. II. If there be any Independent being, there is a God; (for whatever is independent is simple, as wanting any internal cause, to depend upon for its composition; and likewise eternal, as wanting an external cause upon which to depend for its Original; and whatever is simple and eternal is God) 〈◊〉 that there is such a being, is evident: Because otherwise all things whatsoever would be dependent; and that is impossible. For then there would be nothing left upon which all these things should depen●; since whatever is dependent depends upon another. For a thing dependent only upon itself is the same as independent: and 〈◊〉 dependent being depended upon another dependent being, there would be 〈◊〉 Pr●●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 〈◊〉 Accident is naturally posterior to the ●●●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 way 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 supreme 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, etc.  
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 lodged 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 confessed 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 e● part, or in ordine ad unum, & none in o● in ad aliud, because there is n●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, etc. 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 would; 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 Vi● as Moses testifies, who tho' he was familiar with God, yet could not see his foreparts; 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, etc. 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 believed 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 called 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, etc. 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 virtue 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 called 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 itself 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, than it cannot be inevident, Ergo, etc.  
Answ. There be three things to be considered in giving an assent to a truth:  
1. Firmitas, or the steadfastness of the person in his belief, not doubting of any thing.  
2. Certitudo, or the certainty of the truth itself; for some Men may be firmly persuaded of a thing, which is not in itself a certain truth: as the Heretics are of their Errors.  
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 show 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 inevident, yet there are some things more inevident than others, such as the principal and cardinal truths of th● Christian Religion, viz. The Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, the divinity and inc●●●nation of Christ, and the whole Mystery of his Redemption of the World by his bloo● and these are ev●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, because it per accidens so falls out, that it is likewise demonstrable by natural knowledge.  
Answ. 2. It does not follow 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 itself 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 itself wants any ratio, and is only ●●en propter se; so in all the objects of my ●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 as●●● 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 th●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'll opisex rerum, & c? Anaxagoras, Hermotinus, Pythagoras, etc. 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 shown 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 itself did so far surpass the power of Nature, that it could not be compassed 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, than 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 Bias; whereas we see the Knowledge of a God in many men's 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, etc.  
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 ascertained that there is a God, is oft times hindered likewise: But the hindrances 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 itself.  
2. Internal; or, when the Propensive Faculty and Inclination does of its own accord pursue the contrary of what it inclined unto before. And in this sense, the Natural, or Physical Inclinations cannot be controlled in following their Natural Pondus; because they being naturally determined ad Vnum, can never be obliged from any Intrinsic Principle to run in the contrary Channel. But as for Moral Faculties, which are only swayed by Moral, not Physical Agents, they are not endowed 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 assigned, 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 endowed 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 centre) in these, I say, this Axiom 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 prevailed 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 altered in their Inclination; but the latter, viz. Moral Inclinations, are more easily overcome because they are indulged 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 persuaded to assent unto that which is not in general true: But in the more particular circumstances of their Object, they are oft times prevailed 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, etc. may be obliged to give its assent unto that which is not in itself 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 questioned, 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 should happen to be questioned we may quickly return this obvious Answer, viz. that while we are here in, in via, all our knowledge does originally depend upon our Senses; and those Truths which are most evidently testified by them, are best received: For our Senses discover unto us, that Omne totum est majus suâ parte, because we see that a whole Lion is bigger than a part of the same: But as for practical Principles, they are confined within the Sphere of our Reason, and are of a higher pitch than what our low creeping Senses can ever aspire after; and therefore allow us no other Natural Guide to conduct us unto them, but our Reason: Which is so blind, imperfect, and miserably obfuscated, especially as to such Men in whom Vice, Prejudice, Sloth, and neglect of the useful and necessary means does predominate) that it is no wonder if it should embrace Error instead of Truth.  
Now from all that has been said we may safely conclude, that it is abundantly demonstrable by Natural Light that there is a God, and that he is the first cause of all things. From whence these Inferences are plainly deducible.  
1. That God is Eternal; for the first Cause is not capable to receive its production either from itself, or from another.  
2. That he is a most simple Being; for the first Cause as it excludes all external, so likewise all internal constitutive Causes.  
3. That he is independent; for what is first can admit of no prior thing whereupon to depend: (all which hath been largely insisted upon already.) So that not only the Existence of God, but many of his Attributes deducible from thence by undoubted and natural consequence, may be evidently demonstrated by the Light of Nature. Quod erat demonstrandum.   

Some time after the Year 1650, Dr. Barlow being engaged by Dr. Langbain, the Provost of Queen's College in Oxford, to Moderate for him in the Divinity-Disputations in the Chapel; and the Custom of the Moderator then being after the performance of the Disputations was over, to state the Question Disputed of, and to give his Determination concerning the same; and the Copies of several such Determinations concerning many Arduous and Momentous Questions in Theology, being transcribed from the Latin Original of Doctor Barlow's own Writing, it is thought fit for the Information and Entertainment of those whose Studies are Conversant in Divinity, to publish some Translated Extracts, or the substance of some of those Determinations, the Printing of the whole being likely too much to swell the bulk of this Volume: And here various of the Latin Expressions referring to Terms of Art, Distinctions and Quotations, and some particularly emphatical, are thought fit to be retained.   

Praesc●entia Divina à Rebus praevisis non tollit Contingentiam.  
First. HERE I shall explain the Terms, and state the Question; and secondly lay down certain Theses.  
First, By Prescience we mean that Act of Divine Understanding whereby God from all Eternity knew most certainly in himself, things that were to come to pass in time.  
Secondly, I shall say that this prescience of God is not distinguish d from his Science, re ipsâ, sed respectu relativo ad Objectum cognitum terminato. For we call it Scientia, as it perceives all things present, past, and to come; and Praescientia, as it doth rerum temporalium actualem existentiam praecurrere, and is referred to things future. I call them future, not only in Ordine ad res alias quibus succedant in eàdem temporis mensurâ, but also in ordine ad Deum.  
I know that the Schoolmen generally, on 1 par. Q. 14. art. 13. in 1 Sent. Dist. 38. and after them our Learned Davenant Quaest. 35. may think otherwise; namely, that things are not called future; in ordine ad Deum & modum intuitionis Divinae, because the ordo Divinae Cognitionis ad rem quamcunque, is tanquam praesentis ad praesens; where, by the presence of future things in ordine ad Scientiam Divinam, some may either understand praesentiam objectivam; and this we grant; or realem per proprias existentias; and this we deny, because 'tis impossible that futurum Contingens, scientiae (etiam) Divinae, praesens sit actu, antequam actu sit: Since first, alicujus praesens esse supponit esse ex parte Rei.  
And Secondly, Ex parte modi, praesentia actualis per existentiam actualem supponit essentiam actualem quae praesens esse possit. When therefore God did foreknow future Contingencies from Eternity, it is necessary that they should be to him even future; namely in respect of actual existence. The reason is, because they were not futura Contingentia ab aeterno; and therefore from Eternity they could not be present with God.  
The Knowledge therefore of God is twofold.  

First, Simplicis intelligentiae.  
Secondly, Visionis.   
First, The Scientia Simplicis intelligentiae is called the Scientia naturalis & necessaria, and is founded in the power of God, by which he doth certainly and naturally know all things past, present, or to come, or those things which are only possible, and necessarily so that he cannot but know. For this is that we call his Omniscience; nor is it possible that any thing can lie hid from it.  
Secondly, The Scientia Visionis is said to be the Scientia libera, as founded in decreto voluntatis suae libero. And this Knowledge doth know all, and only those things which his Will hath decreed, either efficiendo, so as to produce them; or permittendo, so as not to hinder them. And this Knowledge doth know all things past, present, and future. But those things which are only possible, and never to come to pass, are not the object of this Knowledge. Therefore the Question is concerning this Science of Vision: For if this be referred to future things, it is called prescience.  
In the next place, that we may know what Contingentia is, let us see what is Contingens in the Concrete. Aristotle tells us that Contingens is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod potest aliter se habere: and necessarium, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod non potest aliter se habere. Contingency therefore in the abstract is possibilitas aliter se habendi, as necessity is an impossibility aliter se habendi.  
Moreover, Contingency is twofold.  
First, Intrinsical, Cum res possit aliter sed habere ab intra per principium suum internum: So the Actions of free will are said to be intrinsically contingent ratione principii, because it is in the power of the will, from its intrinsical and innate liberty to act in this way, or another, or in none at all.  
Secondly, Extrinsical by reason of Impediment; whence it comes to pass that a cause otherwise acting in a natural way and necessary, is hindered from its effect. Thus fire does necessarily and naturally burn ex parte sui; but ratione impedimenti interpositi, it is possible that it may not burn. So in Dan. 3.27. The Three Children were thrown into the Fiery Furnace, and yet not burnt, God commanding and ordering things so that the Fire should not burn them.  
Now our Question is to be understood chief of the intrinsical contingency, namely about the Motions, Acts and Properties of the Free Will  
To this therefore our Position comes, that the Divine prescience doth not take away Contingency, seu possibilitatem aliter se habendi; that is to say, The Divine prescience doth not change, determine or necessitate the Object known.  
And here we assert these Two Theses.  
First, That God knoweth future Contingencies.  
Secondly, That this Knowledge doth not take away the Contingency of things.  
First, That God knoweth future Contingencies: And that this is so, none can doubt, who believes the Scriptures; See Matt. 1 21, 22, 23. The Angel there spoke to Joseph of Mary his Wife; And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet; Saying, Behold a Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.  
Now this was many years foretold by the Prophet, Isa▪ 7.14. Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.  
She might have been no Virgin, she might not have been brought forth, the Child might have died in her Womb. They might have given the Child some other Name than Emmanuel. For these were Free Acts expressly foretold by God. Therefore they were distinctly known by God; that God who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ens perfectissimum cannot be deceived.  
And then it was foretold, that not a Bone of Christ should be broken on the Cross, and many Circumstances were verified according to the Prophecies of old therein.  
This foreknowledge in Scripture God assumes to himself, and upbraids the false Gods, because they did not know things to come, Isa, 44. Dan. 2.  
Now this Truth in all Ages hath had its Enemies. God's Providence and Prescience of future things was flatly denied by Epicurus; and Cicero concurred with him. And of late the Socinians have denied it. They do not deny God's Omnisciency: But do thus argue;  
Futura contingentia non sunt omninò Cognoscibilia, ergo nec a Deo sunt Cognita. Neither do they think that any prejudice is hereby done to the Divine Omnipotency For say they, God is omnipotent, & tamen repugnat illum facere impossibilia: and so he is omniscius, & tamen repugnat illum Cognoscere incognoscibilia; and such they account future Contingencies. They say God hath only a Conjectural Knowledge of future things, and not a certain one. So they answer to that of Genesis 18.19. For I know that Abraham will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, etc.  
And so saith Crellius in his Book before Volkelius l. 1. Cap. 24.  
But now we shall proceed to inquire whether this Contingency of future things be not taken away by God's Prescience.  
I assert the Negative, and prove it by some Reasons.  
First then I suppose Prescience to be an Act of the Understanding (as likewise all Science) which alone is Cognoscitive.  
Secondly, I suppose that the Intellect only knoweth its Object, but doth not transmit to it an efficient power, by which it works any thing in the object, For there appears this great difference inter scientem & efficientem, that no effects proceed a Solo sciente, but mediante voluntate per modum inducentis, & potentiâ per modum exequentis. These things being laid down, I thus deduce my Argument.  
Quod nihil omnino agit, Contingentiam non tollit ab objecto Contingenti, At praescientia nihil omnino agit, Ergo, etc. The Major is plain, because it is necessary that that should do somewhat which takes away contingency from the Object; and therefore it will be manifest that prescience (if it does nothing) takes not away Contingency.  
But Prescience does nothing, since 'tis a thing confessed that, Vis omis effectiva in objectum derivata est opus potentiae divinae, non scientiae.  
Secondly, I suppose it as a thing certain and manifest in itself, that omne objectum Cognoscendum est prius naturâ actu Scientiae per quem est Cognitum, ita ut futurum Contingens more suo subsistat necesse est, priusquam quis illud tale esse Cognoscat. I ask therefore if Prescience takes away Contingency; whether it doth it before it knoweth the future Contingent, or while it knoweth it? Not before it knoweth it; For it is impossible ut Actus objectum destruat, priusquam ad illud terminetur. Not while it doth Cognoscere,  
First, Because to know a future Contingent, is objecum prout est apprehendere; that is, to apprehend that it is Contingent and future. But to apprehend that a future thing is contingent, is not to take away Contingency: Since it is impossible that he who truly judgeth that there is now contingency in such an Object, that he should take away the contingency▪ by so judging. For thus proportionem inter se & objectum actus ille destrueret, and thus falsum inducat necesse est, etiam dum verum judicat.  
But Secondly, The Science of God doth not take away Contingency from a present object; therefore not from a future one.  
The Reason is, because the Infallibility of the Divine Prescience is the Cause (according to their Tenets) which we now impugn) why Contingency is taken away from a future Object. But the Divine Science of the Object present is equally infallible. Therefore if it doth not take away Contingency from the present Object, than it doth not from the future. But the Infallibility of the Divine Science doth not take away Contingency from the present Object; Nam si Deus videt Socratem ambulantem, non ideo contingenter & liberè non ambulat, quia Deus infallibiliter hoc Cognoscat.  
Christ tells Peter, Before the Cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice; where Christ foretells this sin of St. Peter certainly and infallibly. Now I ask if this Prescience of Christ did take away the Contingency of the Act? If it did not, I have what I would; namely, that Prescience doth not take away Contingency. If it did take away Contingency, than Peter did not sin in denying Christ. For omne peccatum est voluntarium. And if he did not sin, he wept in vain. Some Books that treat of this, are Spanhemius among his Dubia Evangelica, Dub. 33. Boethius de Consol. Philosoph. lib. 5. prop. 6.   

An electio ad Salutem sit ex fide praevisâ?  
IN the stating the Question he saith, Election is twofold.  
1. Humane, when Man.  
2. Divine, when God chooseth, and of this only it is disputed. And this Election is twofold.  
First, Of a thing, when a thing not a person is chosen. So God is often said to choose Jerusalem and Mount Zion, and Isaiah, 58.6. eligere jejunium. But of this we inquire not.  
Second, Election 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 ordained, 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, p●tuisse Deum vel nullos Condidisse, vel Conditos non elegisse, vel plures, vel pauciores, vel alios p●o●suo ben●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 asked, if Election be from Faith foreseen?  
First, We do not deny that Faith was foreseen from Eternity, since 'tis manifest that the Knowledge of God is equally Eternal with his Will. For sicut quicquid est futurum erat ab aeterno futurum, ita etiam ab ae●erno Cognitum. But  
Secondly, We inquire of the habitude that the foreseeing 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 considered 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 'tis 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 settled, 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 Praedestinatio●is seu Electionis Divinae.  
The first Reason of this Conclusion, is; If Election be from Faith foreseen, than 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 Acts Synodalibus Part. 2. p. 6. where they tell us, Fidem & Perseverationem in Electione Cons●derari ut Conditionem ab bomine praestitam, ac proinde tanquam Causam. They add this Reason, Because the Condition prescribed and performed doth necessario alicujus Causae rationem endure.  
And indeed they must needs be forced 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 not where to be found in Holy Writ, either expressly, 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 'tis 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 'tis 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, etc. And v. 5th showeth that God did predestinate those whom he would adopt for Sons, not such as were Sons. But if he had chosen such as believed, than 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, than 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 Potter's 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.   

Parts sub antiquo saedere per Christi Mortem salutem sunt Consecuti.  
TO begin with the s●●tin● of the Question.  
1. By Father's here we do not understand the Patriarches and Prophets, but all the Faithful under the Old Testament: All the Children of Abraham; I mean not of the begetting, but believing Abraham. For to all, and only these were the promises made, Gal. 3.16, 29. And all these are called 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 explained 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 Glossaries, on the words Pactum, and Faedus: and Mynsinger, and Sckneidwin, on Instit. lib. 3. Tit. 14. De Obligationibus, may be usefully applied 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 Saviour's 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 looked on as a piece of Catholic 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, etc. that therefore they had forgiveness only on the account of the Divine benignity without any respect to the Death of Christ.  
But to show that they obtained forgiveness by Christ's 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 fitly 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, than 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 Mediator 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 Christ's 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 name's sake. And so 'tis 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 that, 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 shown that the Fathers were saved by Christ, ex parte Rei, we shall now show 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 expressly believed.  
Second▪ Implicit, by which Christ is not expressly known and believed, but only implicitly, and by Consequence: Cum ex uno in thesi & directè cognito creditoque, sequitur Christum in hyyothesis & 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 show, that those Holy Men of Eminent note, under the Old Testament, did know Christ, and believe on him, and were by Faith Justified and Saved. This is manifest out of Scripture, either by express Words, or Consequences clearly deduced from it. For this you may consult Acts 10.43. To him give all the Prophet's witness, that through his Name whosoever believes in him, shall obtain Remission of Sins. Now it must necessarily follow, That the Prophets did know him of whom they gave that Testimony. For this, you may see what St. Paul saith, Acts 26 22. Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come. And if you ask whence they knew this, the first of St. Peter 1.10, 11. abundantly shows; Of which Salvation the Prophets have enquired, and searched diligently who Prophesied of the Grace that should come unto you; searching what or what manner of time the Spirit which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the Sufferings of Christ, and the Glory that should follow. For this likewise you may consult St. Luke 24.25, 26, 27. Then he said to them, O Fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken, ought not Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into his Glory? And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.  
It being thus clear that they did know Christ, it remains to be proved, that they did believe on him; and I shall urge this Argument for it, viz. Those who by Christ did gain the Life that is opposed to Spiritual Death, they were justified by Faith in Christ (for Faith in Christ is our Spiritual Life and Righteousness) but the Fathers and Prophets, under the Old Testament, did through Christ gain the Life, that is opposed to Spiritual Death, Ergo, etc. For this see 1 Cor. 15.22. As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. And Rom. 5. from the 12th Verse to the end of the Chapter, the Apostle doth by an accurate and long kind of Argumentation, show, that Spiritual Death came from Adam to all his Posterity, and Spiritual Life by Christ to all his Seed and Servants, v. 18. Therefore as by the offence of one, Judgement came upon all Men to Condemnation, even so by the Righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all Men unto Justification of Life. So that as Death came from Adam to all who were obnoxious to Death under any Covenant whatsoever, so Life came by Christ to all who were Born again under what Covenant soever: The which appears from the 3d. Chapter of the Romans, v. 21, 22, 23. But now the Righteousness of God, without the Law, is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets: Even the Righteousness of God, which is by Faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe, for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God: Here he applies the Righteousness of Christ to all that are Justified, whether they lived under the Law, or under the Gospel. He speaks there expressly of Abraham, and the Jews, as well as of the Holy Men then in being.  
This might be more largely showed from innumerable places of Scripture.  
But it remains now, that we should speak of those of inferior note, or the plebs.  
And here first the Mster of the Sentences, l. 3. dist. 25. (as likewise all his followers, of whom a Catalogue is to be found in Johannes Martinez de Repalda ad dict. dist. Qu. 4.) doth thus conclude the thing; Simplices & indocti e plebe homines sub antiquo foedere in Christum credebant fide solum implicitâ. Nam quia ex se minus capaces erant, ideo majoribus credendo inhaerebant, quibus fidem suam quasi committebant: But for this he brings a ridiculous Argument out of the 1st of Job, The Oxen were ploughing, and the Asses feeding besides them. By the Asses he tells us are meant the simplices & indocti; and so with him the Clergymen are taken for Ox's, and the Laity for Asses.  
But Secondly we say, that the Common People of old, in the Days of the Old Testament, did live Religiously, and did believe on Christ fide explicitâ: I here call it fidem explicitam, but not distinctam. For they knew, that Christ, or the Messiah would come to redeem the House of Israel some time or other; but in what Age, or how, or by what means, they did not guests. And of many other Circumstances that did concern Christ's Person and Office, they were ignorant. All such things the Prophets themselves did not know distinctly, and much less the Laity.  
That the generality of the People had an expectation of Christ, we see out of St. John the 4th, where the Woman of Samaria saith, I know that the Messiah will come, and when he is come, he will tell us all things. She was an ordinary kind of Woman, a Samaritan, and an Adulteress, and yet she saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and knew the Messiah would come: And v. 29. she saith, Come see a Man which told me all things that ever I did. Is not this the Christ? Speaking of Christ, as a thing known among them. And not only the Jews who lived in Christ's Age, did entertain general Notions of a Christ, but they did so in ancienter Ages, whence Malachy the 3d and the 1st, about 100 Years before Christ was born, mention is made of the Angel of the Covenant, which Angel the Jews did Interpret to be Christ. So Rabbi David Kimchi, cited by Grotius on this place; where Grotius doth subjoin this, That the Messiah would come, all the Jews before Christ's time did firmly believe: The which Grotius doth show out of the 2d of Haggai, and in his Annotations on St. Matthew more at large. And Holy Men before Christ's time were Christians, though not called so. Consult Genebrard's Chronologia Hebraeorum, Paris 1600. where p. 59 there is a Tract de Christo, cui titulus; Scripturae in quibus Chaldaeus Paraphrastes interjecit Nomen Messiae, etc. There is there in p. 75. Explicatio Symboli Judaici per doctissimum R. Mosem Maimonidem, where in the 12th Article 'tis said, Jubemur credere tempus dierum Messiae, illumque amare extollere juxta id quod nuntiatum est per Prophetas omnes. Quicunque autem de eo dubitat insimulat universam legem, quae Messiam sperare jubet.  
See more concerning this in Euseb. Demonsir. Evangelic. l. 1. c. 5.   

Ecclesia Authoritatem habet in Controversiis fidei.  
I shall here first explain the terms, and then deduce and prove some Theses.  
First, for the word Ecclesia, it doth signify, 1st. Congregationem, Concionem seu Conventum, eumque duplicem, 1. Civilem, 2. Sacrum. In the former signification we do not only find it used by Thucydides, Halicarnasceus, and other such Writers, but even by Sacred Writers, and especially by Moses and the Prophets, among whom therefore the Septuagint finding the Hebrew words Katial and Heda to denote a Civil Convention, did interpret them by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And moreover the word Ecclesia is used more than once in the New Testament for such a Convention. So in the 19th of the Acts, when Demetrius the Silver-smith had stirred up the People against St. Paul, that tumultuary Concourse of the People is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, see verses the 32d. 39th. 40th. But of a Church as it signifies such a Convention, we do not dispute.  
But, Secondly, Ecclesia is taken more especially not for every Caetus, but for a certain Company of certain Men called by God and his holy Spirit out of the rest of the dregs of Mankind; and this is the most usual interpretation of the word in the New Testament. And tho' there hath been a long Custom of calling Christians by the name of Ecclesia, and Jews by that of Synagoga, yet the Ancients did call them otherwise. For the 70 Interpreters do 70 times apply the world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Jews, and Synagoga not so often.  
But we inquire not here of the Jewish Church of Synagogue, but concerning the Christian Church only: and that is twofold,  
First, Invisible,  
As both the Reformed and the Romanists use to speak.  
Secondly, Visible.  
First, the Church Invisible is a Company of Men called not only by the external Preaching of the Gospel, but the internal working of the Spirit, and this is called Christ's Mystical Body, Col. 1.24. And concerning the Church in this sense we do not here speak, as if the Church invisible had any Authority in Controversies of Faith.  
For First, No Company of Men can be said to have any Authority which they neither do nor can exercise. For in vain is Authority given to any multitudes of Men, if it be impossible they should meet and ordain any thing Authoritatively. But 'tis impossible that the invisible Church of Christ, that is to say Christ's Mystical Body should meet: since ordinarily and without some special divine Revelation 'tis impossible that any Man should know who are truly Godly, and planted into Christ. Since therefore the Members of the invisible Church do not mutually know each other, it is impossible that they should deliberately meet and ordain any thing.  
Secondly, It belongs to Authority to bind some men to be obedient. But the invisible Church can oblige none to obedience, since it is impossible that any man should justly be obliged to obey him, that he is in a constant incapacity of knowing. We do not here therefore make any Question about the Church invisible, and confine it only to the Church visible.  
And all do agree that the Church visible, that is, the Congregation of faithful Men who have given their Names to Christ, hath Authority in Controversies of Faith. All do admit the Authority of this Church in Thesi, but many do doubt of it in Hypothesi, and do dispute 1. Concerning the Subject thereof, 2. of the Modus and Measure.  
First there is a Dispute about the Subject of this Authority, in whom it is to be found, whether in a Pope, or general Council, or in both, or whether in a Council of Bishops only; or whether inferior Clergymen are to be in the number of the Council, and partake of its Authority: or whether this Authority be only vested in Clergymen; and be not Communicated to Laymen; So that in Synods Laymen may have Authority, as at Geneva: or whether this Authority be not originally in the People; for so some have said that all Civil and Ecclesiastical Authorriry is originally in them.  
Secondly, 'tis disputed about the modus and measure of this Authority which is attributed to the Church, whether it be the Authority of a Witness, or of a Judge; directive only, or coactive? The more Modern sort of Papists, especially the Jesuits do ascribe to the Pope supreme and infallible Authority in determining matters of Faith; as out of Baronius, Suarez, Bellarmine, might be clearly shown.  
Now here we further say that the Visible Church doth occur under a double Notion.  
First, as it is taken collectively for all Christians comprehended in the visible Church, whether Pastors or Sheep, Clergy or Laity, and so we deny that it hath this Authority. Because what is in the hands of the Clergy, to whom alone all Spiritual Authority is consigned by Christ, cannot be transferr d to others.  
Secondly, the Church is taken representatively for the sitting of Bishops in Councils and Synods; which Nation of the Church is not to be found in Holy Writ. For although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be found in the Old Testament as Translated by the 70 Interpreters, and in the New Testament by a just account about 88 times, yet it never signifies the Church assembled in a representative Synod, as is manifest. But this signification is introduced by Ecclesiastical use and custom.  
Yet here we say that this Church hath the Authority not only of a Teacher, but of a Judge.  
First, This Church doth Authoritatively Teach, Secondly Judge. Thirdly Command. Fourthly Punish those who disobey. Yet I do not say that the Church hath any Coactive power properly so called, so as foro externo delinquentes ad obedientiam Cogere, either by Imprisonment or pecuniary mulcts, the ordering whereof belongs to the Civil Magistrate. But tho' the Church cannot compel Men in foro externo, it may in foro interno. 1. ligando peccatorem. 2. excommunicando. So that here the Church shall be a Judge as well as a Teacher.  
In the next place we say that the Church is a Judge; and the judgement of matters of Faith is twofold. First Private; Secondly Public.  
As to the First, Every private Christian hath the judgement of matters of Faith. 1 Thes. 5.21. Private Christians are to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. And 1 Cor. 14.29. 1 John 4.1. may be consulted for this purpose.  
But Secondly, there is a public judgement, and this properly belongs to the Church. The Reason is because Pastors of Churches judge not only for their selves judicio privato, but judge for all by a public judgement. And therefore the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, c. 13. v. 1. obligeth us to obey those that are set over us, for they which for our Souls in the Lord.  
But, further we say, that this public judgement of the Church is not what the Papists assert with relation to General Councils.  
For First, there was a time when there was no general Council, namely for the first 300 years after Christ.  
And Secondly, those Councils are not infallible; for if they were so, they would be infallible either, 1st. Ratione partium; but all parts of Councils are fallible; or Secondly, in respect of some Gospel-Promise made concerning the un-erring of General Councils. But concerning any such promise in Scripture there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nec vola nec vestigium.  
But, say they if the Church be not infallible, we need not obey it. I answer, that doth not follow. Parents are not infallibe in their Commands, yet Children are to obey them. And under the Law the High Priest was to be obeyed, tho' but fallible.   

An fides sola justificat?  
FAith is vocabulum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
First, 'Tis taken objectively, pro fide quae creditur; namely, for the Doctrine of the Gospel revealed to us, to which we assent; Acts 6.7. Some are said there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doctrinae evangelicae obedire. Thus we say, symbolum fidei, by which we understand the Doctrinal Articles of Faith.  
Secondly, Faith is taken subjectively pro fide quâ creditur: namely, for that Quality or Action inherent in us. And it is threefold; a Faith Historical, a Faith of Miracles, and Saving Faith. A Faith Temporary is falsely put in, and impertinently added in Catechisms. For it is not distinguished from the other kinds of Faith. And an Historical, and Faith of Miracles, if they end, are temporary. Wicked men may believe the History of the Scripture to be true, and may be able to do Wonders, as many shall say at that day, Lord in thy name we have cast out Devils.  
Thirdly, as to Saving Faith, most of our Divines since Luther's Days have made it to be certa fiducia, quâ certò apud se statuit quis Christum pro se esse mortuum, peccata sibi esse remissa, Deumque placatum. Thus the Palatine Catechism, part 2. Question 21. Where true Faith is defined to be non solùm certa notitia quà verbo divino assentior, sed Certa siducia quâ statuo non solum aliis, sed mihi remissionem peccatorum, aeternam justitiam & vitam donatam esse. Thus Vrsin in notis Catecheticis ibidem. Thus Hier. Zanch. tom. 1. Cap. 1. l. 13. Thus Calvin, Beza, and others generally, and the Church of England in the Homily of Faith Part 1. pag. 22. And thus John Lord Bishop of Worcester in his late Controversiarum fasciculus. De Redemptione. Question 6. p. 269. But if this Certitude of a present Righteousness be essential to faith, than faith cannot be without it.  
And again this fiducia and Plerophory of assurance is an effect and Consequent of Faith.  
And moreover this Opinion is against manifest Reason; for a man must be first justified, and his sins done away before he can certainly know it. For every finite Act presupposes an Object to which it must tend. So 'tis necessary there should be a visible colour before Eye can see, and that there should be objectum cognoscibile before the understanding can know any thing, and that sins should be remitted before any man can know they are so.  
And Justifying Faith must be precedent to this certa fiducia. Nor is this fiducia intrinsical to Justifying Faith, nor a necessary adjunct of it. For there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and it is by many reslex Acts of Faith that this siducia or assurance is at last acquired.  
We say then that illud in desinitione fidei malè ponitur quod non omni co●●e●i●: But this certa siducia doth not omni fidei Competere. Matt. 14.31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cur●●dubitaveras?  
Now Justifying Faith doth therefore not consist in believing that Christ hath pardoned my Sins: For that which supposeth a man just already, cannot make him just. For every intellectual assent doth necessarily presuppose that the Proposition is true that is assented to; and so it is necessary that the Sins of Sempronius should be forgiven, before Sempronius can believe any such thing.  
But now to speak more distinctly, there are three things in fide Salvificâ.  
First, The Knowledge of the Gospel, that Christ was promised by the Father, and sent to be vas, sponsor & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nostrum.  
Secondly, The Assent to the Promises of this kind  
Thirdly, That fiducia quâ anima multis peccati debitis Deo obnoxia, Christum tanquam Vadem suum & sponsorem patri loco nostro obligatum apprehendit; in eoque (pro solutione debiti a se contracto) requiescit, recumbit & innititur.  
The two former things, namely, notitia and assensus are as it were the materiale respectu fidei justificantis: But the 3d. viz. that fiducia is quasi formale fidei, and most proper to it. For though Saving Faith hath divers Actings, about divers Objects, yet as it justifies it looks at Christ alone and him crucified. As the Eye of a Jew under the Old Testament, who was stung by Fiery Serpents, did look at many things beside the Braz●n Serpent, yet he grew well only by looking on that Serpent: So the Eye of Saving Faith looks at many things besides Christ (namely all Gospel Truths) but doth heal us only as it applies Christ as a Medicine to the sick Soul.  
In the next place we say, though this faith be subjectiuè only in the Understanding, yet it is effectiuè in the Will and Affections: and doth in a moral, yet efficacious way determine them to love God, and to obey him: whence 'tis called Faith that works by love. And therefore this Faiih is not speculative Virtue in the head only, but it is also practical in the heart: Non tamen ratione inhaerentiae, sed influentiae.  
Now this Faith is said alone to justify, not in respect of its being without the company of good works, but only in regard of its efficiency. For though good works be in the same subject with this Faith, yet they do not effectively concur with Faith in the business of Justification, for Faith doth that alone, that only applying Christ.  
Moreover, that doth justify us not formaliter; for so the Righteousness of Christ doth justify us: For he is made unto us of God righteousness; 1 Cor. 1.30. but effectiuè: Non tamen quod justitiam illam efficient, vel effectiuè nobis imputet. For it is God who thus justifies, Rom. 8.33. but only because justitiam a Christo oblatam animae peccatrici applicat.  
And this is that which the Divines of the Reformed Religion do so often inculcate in their Writings, that this Faith doth justify, not as it is absolutely considered in itself, and ratione actus, sed objectiuè & relatiuè in ordine ad objectum suum, Christum Scilicet, whom it accepts of: So the hand of a man which receives a Plaster from the hand of a Chirurgeon, is said to heal: Not that it doth that formaliter and effectively, but because it applies it to the Wound which it heals. So a Window enlightens the House, yet neither effectively (if we speak properly) nor formally: but because it transmits' light, which doth properly enlighten.  
Some Popish Writers tell us, that the Apostle when he speaks against Justification by Works, means Ceremonial Works. But that is impertinently urged by them. For Works are in the same manner excluded in our justification, as they were in the justification of Abraham the Father of the faithful: and all his Sons are justified in his likeness. The Works of the Ceremonia and Judicial Law were in his Justification excluded; for there was then neither of those Laws. But the Apostle in Rom. 3. doth exclude the works of the Moral Law in the Business of Justification: Yet in ver. 31. of that Chapter, 'tis said, Do we then make void the Law through Faith? God forbidden, Yea we establish the Law; But now the Ceremonial Law is not established by Faith, for it is abrogated.  
Moreover, others of those Writers tell us, That our first Justification is by Faith; but our second Justification is by Works. But what they call by that Second, is Sanctification, and not Justification.  
And some of them say, we are justified by the Works of the Moral Law; but not by those Works ' which go before Faith, but those which follow it, and spring out of it.  
But we say, That Believers sin afterward, and so cannot be justified by any Works afterward. Their Good Works after Faith are imperfect: And if we should suppose they were not; yet those Good Works which follow Faith, cannot satisfy God for any sins committed before it. And for one Sin committed before Faith, God may justly condemn a Man, though he be holy afterward. For every man doth owe God full Obedience to the utmost of his power in every moment of his time.  
See Pauli Testardi Synopsin naturae & gratiae, who acutely and well handles the Doctrine of Justification by Faith. Thesi 194.   

Imperium pot st●tis Supremae non sol●m civilia sed & sacra Complectitur.  
POtestas here is not taken for power in the Abstract, but in the Concrete, for the Person who hath this power vested in him. Thus the word is used in Lucan, Discubuere Reges, Majorque Potestas Caesar adest. So St. Austin useth it; De verbis Domini, in Matth. Serm. 6. Si aliud Imperator, aliud Deus jubeat: Major potestas est Deus. So S. Paul takes it in the 13th of the Romans, where the Persons are clearly brought in claiming obedience as the higher powers.  
Now as to these Persons having power in things Sacred, we are to consider things as Sacred in a double manner.  
1. Ex Naturâ suâ: So God, and every Person in the Trinity is Holy: Not by the force of any Law, or Institution, but of themselves and their own Nature: And of such Sacred things we do not speak.  
2. Some things are Sacred ex Instituto Divino. So under the Law, the Priest's Tabernacle and first Fruits were Holy, and things Consecrated to God.  
3. Some things are Sacred, ex instituto humano, and these are things which are not so in their own Nature, but are so by the intervening of Authority.  
And such things according to the Civil and Canon Law, are,  
1. Tempora Sacra, as dies fasti and solemn Seasons for some weighty Causes Consecrated to God.  
2. Holy places, as Temples.  
3. Personae Sacrae, as Ministers of the Gospel.  
4. Res Sacrae: As Holy Vessels, Vestments, the Revenues of the Church, and things Dedicated to God. Things are said to be Sacred, if they are separated from a Profane to a Sacred use. So R. David Kimchi on Isa. 56.2. Diem Sanctificare est à profanis usibus separare. And the Holiness of any thing is effectively, as from its productive Principle, by the Action of him who did separate it from a profane use to the use of the Church, and by giving it transferred his Propriety to God. But formally it consists in the Habitude and Relation which it hath to God its Possessor, and to Holy Uses, namely of the Church; and to Holy ends, the Glory of God, and good of Men. So that these things have no absolute or inherent Holiness in them, but only a relative one.  
Now we say, that the Supreme Power doth intra ambitum suum, take in these things. This is proved by Grotius in a Book by him Writ for that purpose, which may be consulted; as likewise Hooker in the 8th Book of his Ecclesiastical Policy, and Paraeus on the 13th of the Romans.  
And here we affirm first, that Sacra Tempora are subject to the higher Powers. But Times are Holy in respect either of Divine, or Humane Institution.  
1. Of Divine, as the Sabbath, and such Days were appointed by God under the Old Testament. And the Magistrate had no power to alter such Times, nor suffer any so to do. This is clear out of Eusebius on the Life of Constantine the Great, the Theodosian Code, and the Novels. And so as to other Festivals. The Maccabees made some solemn Festivals to be observed: At the Observation of which Christ was present, St. John 10.22.  
And as to things given to God, they cannot be alienated. The expression of giving things to God is used 1 Chron. 29.  
And in the Charters where the Religious use of things is specified, the Style is, Concessimus Deo. Now the propriety by such Donations is in a special manner transmitted to God. So Sacerdos is called in Scripture a Man of God. And the Temple set apart for him, the House of God. And Christ calls it so, My House is called the House of Prayer. And the Sabbath is called the Lord's Sabbath; the first Day of the Week, the Lord's Day. The Propriety is according to all Laws transferred to the Donatarius. See for this the 167th Rule of Law in the Digests de Regulis Juris; non videntur data quae eo tempore quo dantur accipientis non ●iunt.  
And here we say, that the Chief Magistrate hath no power to alter things wherein God is the Proprietary. Quod meum est sine facto meo ad alium transferri non potest, saith the Rule of Law.  
But yet we say, that Imperium potestatis supremae sacras personas & actiones sacras Complectitur. For  
First, Sacred Persons may be considered as Members of the Commonwealth, and so they are all subject to the higher Powers. And  
Secondly, As Members of a Church, and so they are subject too to those Powers, even in Ecclesiastical things: However the Papists deny this, to prop up the Supreme power of their Popes.  
But here we must consider, that in Ecclesiastical Persons there is a twofold Power.  
1. The Power of Order, which by their Function they have to Preach God's Word, Administer the Sacraments, and confer Orders. And this Power is wholly Spiritual, and derived to Holy Persons from Christ independently on any Secular Power. This Power Christ gave to his Apostles, and they to others, whether Secular Powers would or no: So that the Secular Magistrate cannot be said to Confer this Power, nor to exercise the proper Acts of it. Nor can he Ordain a Presbyter, or give the Sacrament.  
But yet even as to this Power, Sacred Persons may be said thus, Magistratui subjacere.  
First, As he may compel them to do their Duties, and to execute their Spiritual Functions if they are remiss.  
Secondly, As he may make Laws to oblige them to do such and such particular things as Christ hath Commanded them.  
Thirdly, As he may punish them for not doing so. Thus much of the potestas ordinis in Ecclesiastical Persons.  
But Secondly there may be considered in them the Power of Jurisdiction; and that  
1. In foro interno; and this Power they have from Christ, and not from Magistrates.  
2. In foro externo, and Coactive; and this Jurisdiction is wholly borrowed from the Civil Power, and is directly subject to it.   

Sacro fungi Ministerio nisi legitimè vocatus nullus jure potest.  
IN the explaining the terms of the Question in order to the stating of it, we shall  
First, Take notice that the mentioning of the word Ministerium makes it obvious to us to distinguish it by  and Sacrum.  
The Civil Ministry is generally taken for a public Office or Trust, committed to any by a Prince or State: And so you may find it in the Imperial Laws, l. 1. ff. ad L. Jul. Repetund. And this name of Ministers, was given to the most Honourable Officers in the Roman Commonwealth.  
But the Ministerium Sacrum is Munus alicui a Deo demandatum, quo ipsi immediatius famulamur, and which doth not look so much at the Political and External good of a State, as men's Ecclesiastical and inward concerns; and at the Glory of God, and at the Eternal Salvation of the Souls of Men. But  
Secondly, This Ministry is not said to be Sacred in respect of its Principium a quo, namely God: Because although absolute loquendo, the Ecclesiastical Ministry may be called Sacred, respectu principii a quo namely God, yet Comparative loquendo, it is not more Sacred in order to God as the Principium a quo, than the Civil Ministry; for both of them do meet in this that they are a Deo. And so they are both Sacred on this account.  
For Kings in respect of their Authority delivered from God are Sacred Persons, and were so called in all Ages and by all People. So Sacra Majestas Caesarea, Sacra Majestas Regia, are the most known Epitheti of Supreme Power.  
But the Ecclesiastical Ministry is said to be Sacred in respect of its object, and the matter in which it Converseth, of the Management of Holy things Committed to a Man by God; whereas the Civil Ministry handles not things Sacred, but Civil.  
This Sacred Ministry we affirm to have been committed by God to some certain Persons. And that  
First, Immediately in the time of the Gospel, as when Christ chose the Apostles and 70. Disciples, and employed them in the Ministry of the Gospel.  
Secondly, Mediately. Thus the Apostles, and their Successors did commit this Ministry to others by them chosen and ordained. For this see S. Matthew, 28.18, 19, 20. Jesus came and spoke to them saying, All power is given to me in Heaven and Earth, go ye therefore and teach all Nations, Baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; etc.  
There he commits to them the Authority given him by his Father. And this is more clear out of St. John, c. 20. 21. As my Father hath sent me, so send I you.  
Christ was sent by his Father, they by Christ, and others by them: you may further consult Acts, 20.28, Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers: etc.  
The Spirit of God did make them Bishops, but not immediately: for we know they were Constituted mediately by Man.  
The Question therefore is, whether any may perform the acts of this Ministry, who are not Lawfully called to it? We deny it, and do distinguish of a double calling.  
First, Extraordinary, when God doth call some Men immediately and having endowed them with gifts, sends them into the Vineyard So we know the Prophets and Apostles were called to the work of the Ministry, and we believe that others by them were in ipsis nascentis Ecclesiae primordiis so called.  
Secondly, I do not doubt but that God by his infinite power may sometime call Men thus to it even at this Day. But that he hath actually called any Men so extraordinarily and immediately (the Church having been settled for so many years) I deny. Nor shall I believe it, unless by manifest criteria they make it appear to us to be so. But suppose it that Sempronius comes to me, and Preacheth to me many new unheard of things, and tells me that he was sent from God to declare them to me, I say in this Case no Man is bound to believe Sempronius, unless by some cogent demonstration, he proves himself to have been thus sent by God. But  
Secondly, This calling is ordinary: to wit, that which is not immediately from God, but mediately by the intervention of men's will and authority derived from God: and this calling is twofold.  
First, Internal, which consists in this, that he who desires to be chosen, or admitted into this Holy and Religious Negotiation, should seriously and sincerely examine himself and his Talents, and look into the most inward recesses of his mind, and at last determine himself to have this inward aptitude, all things considered, for the work of the Ministry, so that he may Spontaneously offer himself up to God: for no Man ought to be admitted into Holy Orders against his will.  
Secondly, This calling is external made by those who preside over the Church, which consists in this.  
First, That the Overseers of the Church should approve the Man's gifts and qualifications for the work publicly.  
Secondly, After they have according to the Apostolical Canons, and Rules delivered in the Scripture, known and approved such a Man to be fit for the Ministry; that they then impose hands on him in a Solemn manner; initiate him in Holy Orders, and Communicate to him the Spiritual Authority first given them by Christ. For we say that without such a calling as this, no Man can be a Lawful Minister.  
And as for the necessity of this calling, none of the Ancient Heretics of the Primitive Church ever denied it: and the Anabaptists born in High Germany, were the first who denied it; as is clear out of sleidan's Commentaries. And for this you may see the Gangraena Theologiae Anabaptisticae per Johan. Cl●ppenburgium.  
This opinion of theirs was afterward owned by Socinus, as appears out of his Epistola tertia ad Math. Raderium, where he saith p. 126. Jam vero verbi Dei Administratio quae ad Ecclesiam Colligendam, Constituendamque requiritur, nulli certae Familiae, nulli eligendi rationi, aut Successioni alligata e●t. And he giveth his judgement in the like manner concerning the Lord's Supper, that it is not necessary to be given by a Minister.  
But many Arguments might be brought from the Scripture, to support the contrary truth. I shall here refer to the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews c. 5. v. 4. And no Man taketh this honour to him, but he that is called of God as was Aaron. Now this is to be meant of every Priesthood, and not only of the Levitical one. For Christ's Priesthood was no Levitical one, yet he was called to it.  
But they will say, no Man is now called as Aaron was, and therefore by that Rule there should be now no Priest: For no Man is now called immediately by God as Aaron was.  
I Answer; those words, Sicut Aaron, do note the Principium vocationis respectu Substantiae, namely, that every calling that was Lawful should be made by God as the calling of Aaron was; not in respect of the manner of the calling in every Circumstance. For  
First, Christ himself was not so called.  
Secondly, Not every Successor of Aaron was so called. For it is manifest that his Successors had not an immediate call from God as he had. Thus therefore the place may be understood; As the Successors of Aaron were called as truly by God as Aaron was, so the Ministers of the Gospel at this day, are called by God as truly as the Apostles were, though they are not called immediately by God as were the Apostles.  
Moreover Ministers are styled the Ambassadors of Christ, and therefore must have a call to that Office. And it is impossible that all Men should be Ambassadors. For to whom should they be sent?   

An 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sit licita?  
A Thing is said to be Lawful two ways.  
First, Ex imperio Legis & mandato: and so that may be said to be Lawful, which is Commanded, as to Love God, and our Neighbour, etc.  
Secondly, Ex permissa legis. So that is Lawful which is not prohibited. The Stoics were of Opinion, that they were permitted by Law to kill themselves, as appears out of the Writings of Seneca and Epictetus. They looked on Life as a banquet, from which any Man might rise when he had his fill, and go his way.  
Nor is killing one's self held absolutely Unlawful, by the Canon Law. For thus we have it in Gratian Decr. part. 2. cau●. 23. Q. 5. Can. placuit. Placuit ut qui sibi ipsis vo untariè quolibet modo mortem violentam inferrent, nulla prorsus pro ipsis in oblatione Commemoratio fiat, neque cum Psalmis eorum Cadavera ad sepulturam deducantur. For this was by way of punishment imposed on them, Canone 34. Concilii Bacharensis from whence Gratian borrowed it. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not in all Cases held unlawful by Gratian. For thus he tells us there Canone, non est nostrum, and referring to Hierom on the 1. Chapter of Jonah Non est nostrum mortem arripere, sed allatam ab aliis libenter far. Vnde in Persecutionibus non licet propriâ perire manu (absque eo ubi Castitas periclitatur) sed percutienti colla submittere.  
By the Civil Law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is forbidden. L. Siquis. ff. De poenis §. miles. Miles qui sibi manus intulit, nec factum peregit, nisi impatientiâ doloris aut morbi, luctusve alicujus, vel aliâ causâ fecerit, capite pumendus est: Alias cum ignominiâ mittendus est. So that the endeavour to kill one's self is punishable by the Civil Law.  
But in the next place, I shall say, that the Question is not whether Killing one's self be forbidden by the positive Laws of God and Man, but whether it be intrinsically evil, as forbidden by the Law of Nature, as well as Scripture?  
And first we say, 'tis forbidden by the Law of God, Gen. 9.5, 6. And surely your blood of your Lives will I require, at the hand of every Beast will I require it, and at the hand of Man, etc. whoso sheddeth Man's Blood, by Man shall his Blood be shed, etc.  
So that Homicide is only lawful for those who are vested with Authority. And all Men are either Subjects, or such who have Supreme Authority. But to neither of these is power granted to Kill themselves.  
First, Not to Subjects. For the power of Life and Death is vested alone in the Chief Magistrate: and that Men should be subjects and entrusted with the jus vitae & necis, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Secondly, Subjects cannot justly Kill another: Therefore à fortiori they cannot Kill themselves. Thou mayest not Kill thy Brother, because Natural Charity doth oblige thee to Love him. But the same Charity doth oblige thee more strongly to Love thyself. For the Law of Nature and right Reason permit thee to take away thy Brother's Life, while thou dost necessarily defend thy own. But  
Thirdly, We say that the Supreme Magistrate hath not power to kill himself. He hath the power of Life and Death over his Subjects, but not over himself. For dominans and is in quem dominatur are relata, and dominium is the relation between those terms. And it is naturally impossible that one and the same person should supply the place of the relatum and Correlatum, and be dominans and Dominatus, ille qui habet, & ille in quem habet Authoritatem, especially since the party governing must needs be supposed to have an Authority over the party governed. And so it is absurd that one and the same person should be superior and inferior to himself, and yet be subject to himself. But  
Fourthly, We say that no case can happen in which any Man can be supposed to have Authority to kill himself.  
For at the time that any one doth violence to himself, either he is innocent, or guilty of Death. If a Man be innocent, than no power, no not the Supreme, can justly put him to Death. If he be guilty of Death, he may be killed, but not by himself. For who Constituted him a Judge thus over himself? Let him show his diploma for any such authority. Moreover Natural Reason doth not allow that any one Man should be Judge, Witness, and Executioner.  
But further in the next place, that Self-killing is not lawful, may be thus proved. Quod meum non est (eousque quo meum non est) usurpare, vel de co di●ponere non possum sine consensu ejus cujus interest. But my Life is not ex ass, and absolutely my own. For according to Tully, partem parents in me vendicant. The Commonwealth, and whoever is Supreme in it have a concern in the Lives and Fortunes of their Subjects; Interest Reipublicae ne quis re suâ malè utatur; and especially his Life. Aristotle therefore in the 5th Book of his Ethics, cap. 11. observes, that by Self-homicide, Men injure the Commonwealth, and therefore no marvel that Punishments are appointed to deter men from it.  
We are in this Life as in an Army, and must not forsake the Camp without allowance from our General.  
You may consult on this Subject Bartholinus Salon, and Ludovicus Molina de Justitiâ & jure; Tract. de homicidio: and Balthasar Gomesius Juris-consultus-Toletanus.   

Omne Mendacium est peccatum.  
EVery one hath heard of the common distinction of Lies, and the Socinians affirm that mendacium Officiosum is lawful; as appears out of Volkelius De Verâ Religione, l. 4. c. 14. And Albericus Gentilis a Learned Civilian asserts and endeavours to prove the same in his Book de Abusu mendacii: And so Grotius holds in his Book de jure belli & pacis. And indeed some of the Fathers held so, and so doth Dr. Jeremy Taylor in his Grand Exemplar.  
But the Schoolmen, and all Divines both Popish and Reformed, do condemn all kind of lying as unlawful both by the light of Nature and Scripture, and as appears out of Suarez De Legibus.  
I shall here make use of the definition of a Lie that is most generally received among Philosophers, Divines, and Lawyers, which is, Mendacium est significatio falsi cum intentione fallendi.  
First, I say 'tis significatio, sive per vocem, sive per notas, or nutus; still (as Grotius saith) 'tis significatio falsi. A Lie may be not only in dictis, but in factis: as if Titius be to go to Rome and asks Sempronius the way thither, and Sempronius saith nothing, but points him the wrong way with his finger on purpose, he doth digito mentiri. And so a Dumb Man may be a Liar, if by any sign he doth point out that which is false, knowing it to be so.  
Secondly, Therefore mendacium is significatio falsi. Now a thing may be said to be false two ways;  
First, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & ex parte rei. So Gen. 3. Satan told a Lie when he said, ye shall not surely die: and in this sense it is not necessary that to make up a Lie it should be always significatio falsi.  
And Secondly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as that which seems false to us tho' it may be true in itself. The signification of falseness in this sense is always necessary to make up a Lie. So that if Caius signifies the truth, and thinks it to be false, he Lies: and signifying that which is false, believing it to be true, he doth not Lie. Thus necessary is it to make up a Lie, that he who Lies should know that to be false which he asserts; and that either,  
First, Cognition actuali, when he at present knows that to be false which he asserts to another; or,  
Secondly, Cognition potentiali, which knowledge tho' he hath not at present, yet he might have had it, and aught to have had it. Paria sunt scire & scire debere. So some Heretics tho' at present they think their blasphemous Opinions true, and so are not formally Liars in one sense yet they are Liars interpretatively, because they might have known their Opinions to be false and aught to have known them to be so. False Prophets therefore, and false Teachers are justly in the Scripture called Liars: and of such the Apostle speaks, 2 Thes. 2.11. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusions that they should believe a Lie.  
But Thirdly, to a Lie there is not only required significatio falsi, but intentio fallendi: for an intention of deceiving is intrinsically included in the nature of a Lie. And this intention of deceiving or cheating is twofold.  
First, If I intent to deceive or cheat at first when I make a Contract or Bargain, then am I a Liar.  
Secondly, If I did not intent it at first, and afterwards intended it, it is the same thing; as if I promising to pay a Man Money at the end of a Month, intending at the time of the promise so to do, but afterward intent and do the contrary, tho' it were in my power to do it, I make myself a Liar.  
And from the intention of the Liar a Lie is called sometimes 1. Jocosum. 2. Officiosum. 3. Perniciosum, that is hurtful to my Neighbour.  
But I do in general conclude that every Lie is morally evil and sinful, Rev. 21.8. Whoremongers, Idolaters, and all Liars shall have their part in the Lake which burns with Fire and Brimstone. And the Devil is in Scripture called a Liar.  
But to prove a Lie to be sinful by nature, it is sufficient to urge that every Act morally defective is sinful, but so is a Lie; it is defective in its end, for the end of every Lie is to deceive; and to wish that any man may be deceived, is to wish a thing against natural Charity; and the Rule of malum ex quolibet defectu is obvious.  
Now for the particular kinds of a Lie; all do agree that mendacium perniciosum is sinful, and likewise that mendacium jocosum is sinful, tho' some deny the mendacium officiosum to be so. Volkelius who allows of this, yet condemns that. The Apostle condemns the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, without this jesting Lying, and therefore the Lying mixed with it is the more condemned.  
The great Controversy is about an officious Lie, and some will say that it is sinful to fright Children with fancies, and to cheat melancholy People by fantastic affirmations into the taking of Physic, etc. But in such Cases the mendacium officiosum is allowable, but not in Serious Cases.   

Vim Institutionum Divinarum non tollit malitia, neque non intentio Ministrorum.  
THE Romanists never determined for the Validity of the Sacrament depending on the intention of the Priest, till it was done by the Florentine Synod, Anno 1439. as is to be seen in Caranz. p. 867, 868, and afterward by the Council of Trent, in the Year 1545. Concil. Trident. Sess. 7. Can. 4.  
Now this Question contains in it a double Assertion.  
First, That the Malitia Ministrorum, in respect of Sins of Commission doth not make the Sacrament invalid. And  
Secondly, That the Omission of the Priests, or their not intending things aright, doth not render the Sacrament invalid.  
Now as Institution may be taken for a Law, it may be two ways considered.  
First, In ratione legis prout obligat. And the Law of God binding immutably, no Impiety of Men can take away the Obligatory Power of it.  
Secondly, In ratione regulae prout dirigit. And so the force of the Institution being intrinsical in ratione regulae, no Impiety of Men can take away the directive power of it. The wickedness of the Minister doth hinder himself from receiving benefit by the Sacrament, but not the Persons to whom it was given. And the Papists themselves say, that a Sin of Commission doth not invalidate the Sacrament, as appears out of a Synodical Decree, à Petro Archiepiscopo Moguntino edito in Concilio Provinciali Ashaffemburg●nsi, apud Petrum Crabb. To. 3. p. 825. Statuimus (saith he) si quis doceat, teneatve quod Sacerdos in peccato mortali existens, non possit Corpus Christi Conficere, subditos ligare, & à peccato solvere, pro haeretico habeatur. Cum constat Scripturae Sacrae Authoritate, quod sive bonus sive malus sit minister, per utrumque Deus effectum gratiae suae confert. Non enim quae Sancta sunt Coinquinari possunt, nec ipsa Sacramenta potest hominum malitia prophanare: Vnde Sacerdos quantumcunque pollu●● existat, divina non potest polluere Sacramenta, quae purgatoria cunctorum pollutionum exiscunt.  
The Sons of Eli the High Priest, are called Sons of Belial, and such as knew not the Lord, 1 Sam. 2.12. yet 'tis not to be doubted, but that their Administration of the Holy things was useful and profitable to God's People.  
Yet this we must say, that though the sinfulness and profaneness of Ministers cannot directè and per se make the Sacrament invalid, it may indirectly and per accidens occasion the Sacraments not doing the People so much good, as might otherwise have happened. And thus the Sons of Eli, 1 Sam. 2.17. are said to have made some abhor the offerings of the Lord, and v. 24. to make the Lord's People transgress.  
I shall now proceed to show, that the Validity of the Sacrament depends not on the intention of the Priest.  
The Papists say, first in general, that the intention of the Priest is required: And that  
Secondly, By Intention they understand Voluntatem faciendi quod facit ecclesia. Bellarmine takes a great deal of pains to clear this Tenet of the Church of Rome from absurdity. But Omnia cum fecit Thaida Thais olet.  
God, as the King of all, sends his Ministers of the Gospel as his Ambassadors. Now what matter is it what the Ambassador intends if he delivers his King's Message well? If a Man gives a Gift, and sends it by another, the intention of the Giver is only considered, and not that of the Messenger.  
But to urge the matter more closely, if the efficacy of the Sacrament depends on the intention of the Priest, then according to the Papists, will it be in his power to deprive the People of that, and even of Salvation itself.  
And then again, none but the Priests themselves can tell whether Idolatry be committed, or no. For Papists are bound to ●orship the Consecrated Bread, Cultu lat●●●; and they all grant, that if after Consecration, the Bread should not be Transubstan●●ated, they are gross Idolaters. Now who can tell what the Priest intends in Consecration?  
Moreover since Order is a Sacrament with the Romanists, that they cannot know the intention of the Priest, it must necessarily follow, that instead of their being able to know that their Pope is Infallible, they are not able to know that he is a Pope at all. For he cannot be a Pope, unless he was made a Bishop: But whether he was ever made a Bishop; or whether he, or any else in the Church, was ever Baptised, and made a Christian, none but the searcher of Hearts knows. And so it must necessarily follow, that all Papists while such, must perpetuae incertitudinis vertigine acti in aeternum dubitare.  
But so absurd is this Tenet of the intention of the Priest, as essential to the validity of the Sacrament, and the ill Consequences of it so very many, that we are told it out of the History of the Council of Trent, a Bishop in that Council Disputing largely against it, the Historian saith of him, Tantae erant rationes à se adductae, ut caeteros Theologos in stuporem dederant. Vide fis Historiam Tridentinam, lib. 2. p. 276. Leidae ●editam, Anno 1622.   

Of a Presbyterian Divine reporting publicly, That Bishop Sanderso● died an Approver of that Sect; and of a Paper attested by Bishop Barlow to the contrary; and of the contrary likewise appearing out of Bishop Sanderson's last Will and Testament.  
OF the shameful Calumnies of Papists in reporting that some of the Fathers of our Church died Papists, though they had been the greatest Zealots against Popery; an Instance is given by one who was a Convert from the Church of Rome to that of England, and Author of a Book, called, The Foot out of the Snare: Printed at London Anno 1624. and where in pag. 18. he mentions how Dr. King Bishop of London, in a Sermon on the 5th of November, had represented the Jesuits, and Jesuited Papists as notorious Architects of Fraud and Cozenage, and saith, that the Bishop spoke those words prophetically, as by a kind of fore-instinct, how he should in his memory, suffer by their Forgeries; the which he did by their lying Book, called, The Bishop of London's Legacy, making him die a Papist; and which Book, as he saith, was writ by one Musket a Jesuit; and palates in p. 80. how a Priest of the Church of Rome told him, He was sorry that ever their Superiors should suffer such a Book, for that it would do the Romanists more hurt than any Book they ever wrote.  
And he might well say so, it being most true what the Lord Bacon said, That Frost and Fraud have always foul ends. And as Bishop King was thus in his Memory basely attacked by a Papist, so our great Bishop Sander●on was by a Presbyterian Divine, who shall not be named out of honour to a Noble Lord his Patron.  
And it is not to be doubted but that Dr. Sanderson, who had been ordained Deacon and Priest, by that Bishop King (as Walton tells us in the Doctor's Life) had been sufficiently informed of that Popish Calumny, designed to blast Bishop King's Reputation; and therefore Bishop Sanderson did take care that Posterity should be sufficiently apprised of the Faith he intended to live and die in, by his giving the world a notification thereof in his last Will and Testament; the which was by him perfected on the 6th day of January, 1662. some few Weeks before his Death; for he died on the 26th day of that Month; and his Will was proved in the Prerogative Court at London, on the 28th of March 1663. The Witnesses Names to the Will are Josiah ●u●len, Ja. Thornton, Edw Foxley.  
Bishop Barlow, who since succeeded Bishop Sanderson in the Diocese of Lincoln, did while he was Provost of Queen's College in Oxford, sign an Attestation of the factum of Bishop Sanderson's dying as he had lived, a true Son of the Church of England; and of a Presbiterian Divine calumniating him for the contrary: and delivered the following Paper to the late Minister of Buckden for his information in the Matter of that Factum.  
There was one of Bishop Sanderson's Sermons preached on this Text;  
— But in vain do they worship me, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men, Mat. 15.9.  
This Posthumous Sermon was printed on this occasion; Mr. Roswel B. of D. and Fellow of Christ Church College in Oxon, meeting with Dr. Tho. Sanderson the Bishop's Son, he shows him a Copy of this Sermon fairly writ with the Bishop's own hand; Mr. Roswell read, liked, and desired it might be printed; but the Dr. denied, because the Bishop had commanded none of his Papers to be printed after his Death. Mr. Reynel Fellow of C. Christi, being in Lancashire, found that a Presbyterian Minister had possessed many of that Country with a belief that Bishop Sanderson before his death repent of what he writ against the Presbyterians, and on his death bed would suffer no Hierarchical Ministers to come or pray with him, but desired and had only Presbyterians about him.  
Mr. Reynel signifying this to Mr. Roswel, desires him to inquire the truth of this, and signify it to him; whereupon he consults Mr. Pullen of Magdalen Hall, who was my Lord's Household Chaplain with him in all his Sickness, and at his Death; and he assured him that the said Bishop as he lived, 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 Judgement, and to confute that lying Report; and so that lie occasioned the publishing this Truth. A●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 Catholic 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 own their particular different persuasions 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 World's 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 Unthankfulness, Riot, and Sacrilege) 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 Sovereign, 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 wholesome 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 Di●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 established 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 Public Worship had been provided and established 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 prized and esteemed 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 enjoin 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 public Peace and Unity, 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 bl●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 Diocese within the abovesaid County, to publish the above mentioned Order the next Sunday after it should be tendered 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 Poultry.  
THe History of the Famous Edist of Nantes, containing an account of all the Persecutions which in France have befallen those Protestants, who for these last four score and ten Years have lived in that Kingdom under the Reign of Hen III. Hen. iv Lewis XIII. and Lewis XIV. faithfully extracted from all the public and secret Memoirs that could possibly be procured, by that Learned and Eminent Divine Mounsieur Bennoit. To complete this Elaborate Work, (which has already born a second Impression in Holland) the Reverend Author had not only great assistance from remote parts, but had also the help of many curious persons in his Neighbourhood, public and private libraries, the Cabinets and Studies of the more exacter sort, where Fugitive Pieces secure themselves. The several Manuscripts of the Learned and Ingenious Mouns●eur Tester Eau which he left at his death, with many other helps, which will best appear in the work itself. This Book was printed first in French by the Authority of the States of Holland and West-Friesland, and is now translated into English, with Her Majesties Royal Privilege.  
Bishop Barlow's Remains.  
Liturgia Tigurina: Or the Book of Common-Prayer, and Administration of the Sacrament, and other Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies usually practised, and solemnly performed in the Churches and Chapels of the City and Canton of Zurick in Switzerland, and in some other adjacent Countries, as by their Canons and Ecclesiastical Laws they are appointed, and as by the Supreme Power of the Right Honourable the Senate of Zurick, they are authorized, with the Orders of that Church; Published with the approbation of several Bishops.  
Memoirs of the Right Honourable Arthur Earl of Anglesey, Late Lord Privy-Seal; intermixed with Moral, Political, and Historical Obsevations; to which is prefixed a Letter written by his Lordship, during his retirement from Court in the Year 1683. published by Sir Peter Pett Knight Advocate-General for the Kingdom of Ireland.  
Casuistical Morning Exercises, the Fourth Volume, by several Ministers, in and about London.  
The Life of the Reverend Mr. Thomas Brand, by Dr. Samuel Annesley.  
Practical Discourses on Sickness and Recovery in several Sermons, as they were lately preached in a Congregation in London by Timothy Rogers M. A. after his Recovery of a Sickness of near two years' continuance.  
The Life and Death of the Reverend Mr. Eliot, the first Preacher of the Gospel to the Indians in America.  
The Tragedies of Sin, by Stephen Jay, late Rector of Chinner in Oxfordshire.  
A Treatise of Fornication: To which is added a Penitentiary Sermon upon John 8.11. By William Barlow, Rector of Chalgrave.  
Infant Baptism, stated in an Essay to evidence its Lawfulness from the Testimony of Holy Scripture; by J. Rothwel, M. A. a Presbyter of the Church of England.  
The Mourners Companion; or Funeral Discourses on several Texts, by John Shower.  
Mensalia Sacra; Or Meditations on the Lord's Supper: Wherein the nature of the Holy Sacrament is explained, and the most weighty Cases of Conscience about it are resolved by the Reverend Mr. Francis Crow: To which is prefixed a Brief Account of the Author's Life and Death by Mr. Henry Cuts.   

Books now in the Press, and going to it; Printed for John Dunton at the Raven in the Poultry.  
THe 2d. 3d. and 4th. Volumes of the History of the Famous Edict of Nantes, containing an account of all the Persecutions that have been in France during the Reigns of Lewis XIII. and Lew. XIV. faithfully extracted from all the Public and Secret Memoirs that could possibly be produced by that Learned and Eminent Divine Monsieur Bennoit; Printed first in French by the Authority of the States of Holland and West-Friezland, and now to be translated into English, with Her Majesty's Royal Privilege.  
The Lord Faulkland's Works, Secretary of State to King Charles the I. collected all together into one Volume; To which will be prefixed Memoirs of his Lordship's Life and Death; never printed before. Written by a Person of Honour.  
A Methodical and Comparative Description of all the Religions in the World, with their Subd●visions; in two Parts: The one in Parallel Columns, containing their Theory; and the other relating their Practices, as distinguished unto the several Religions of Jew, Christian, Mahometan and Heathen, By a Dignitary of the Church of England.  
Mr. William Leybourn's New Mathematical Tractates in Fol. Entitled, Pleasure with Profit, (lately proposed by way of Subscription) having met with good Encouragement, are now put to several Presses, and will be ready to be delivered to Subscribers the next Term: In this Work will be inserted, (above what was at first proposed) a New Systerm of Algebra, according to the last Improvements and Discoveries that have been made in that Art; As also several great Curiosities in Cryptography, Horometria, etc. which Additions will enhance each Book to 16. s. in Quires to those that do not subscribe, and those that do, are desired to send in their first Payment (viz. 6. s. before the 26th. instant;) after which no Subscriptions will be taken in.