Several miscellaneous and weighty cases of conscience learnedly and judiciously resolved / by the Right Reverend Father in God, Dr. Thomas Barlow ...

A Friend of the late Bishop of Lincoln's, observing how customary it is to Prote∣stant Writers to charge on the Papists, the Tenet of Dominium fundatur in Gratiâ, requested his Lordship to resolve him how far the said Tenet is charge∣able on the Church of Rome. And thereupon his Lordship was pleased to send him under his own Hand a Paper writ as followeth.

Quaeritur, An Dominium fun∣detur in Gratia?

IN Answer to this, I shall say only a few things, which (to me) seem certain and evident Truths.

1. The Question must be held Negatively; Dominium non fundatur in Gratia: Neither Dominium Tem∣porale, of Kings or Lay-Magistrates; nor Dominium Spirituale, of the Bi∣shops and Clergy. This has been e∣vidently proved by many of our Divines, especially and clearly by Dr. Davenant Bishop of Salisbury.

2. The Papists (who are both the Accusers and Judges) do impute this Opinion to Wickliff and Hus, and their Followers, and condemn the Opinion, and them for it, as Hereticks, for saying, that Domini∣um

fundatur in Gratia: which is a manifest Calumny, and no just or proved Accusation; as might be proved out of Hus his printed Works, and several Manuscript Works of Wickliff in Bodley's Library. But they bring these lying Accusations against them, that they may have some pretence to destroy and mur∣der them.

3. That erroneous and impious Council of Constance, Anno 1413, (which is an Oecumenical and Gene∣ral Council at Rome) having con∣fess'd, that our Blessed Saviour did institute the Eucharist in both kinds, they blasphemously add,† Quod non obstante Institutione Christi, they de∣cree, That the Sacrament should be taken only in one kind. Whence Luther would not call it Concilium Constantiense, but Concilium NON-OBSTANTIENSE. Now this Council condemns this Propositi∣on,

Dominium fundatur in Gratia;

1st. In‖ John Hus and his Fol∣lowers.

2dly. In Wickliff and his Fol∣lowers.

4. I do not find any Popish Au∣thor, who affirms and approves this Proposition (Dominium funda∣tur in Gratia) in those very Terms in which the Council of Constance had condemned it as Heretical: For this were to contradict their own Principles, and approve that for Truth, which their Supreme In∣fallible Guide (a General Council) had Synodically declared Heresy.

5. But the Church of Rome (though in other Terms) doth both profess and practise this Doctrine, that Dominium fundatur in Gratia: For they say, that Dominium funda∣tur in Fide & Religione Catholica, (so they miscal Popery, or the Roman Religion) so that if any Man, by

Apostacy, desert their Religion, or, by Heresy, deny any Article of their Faith, he does not only for∣feit his Dominion over his Inferiors, but all his Goods and Livelihood, and his Life here, and eternal Life hereafter. This is the erroneous and impious Doctrine of the Church of Rome, approved and vindicated, not only by their Schoolmen, Casuists, Canonists, Summists, &c. but recei∣ved into the Body of their Canon-Law, in their last, and (as they say) the most correct Editions of it, and declared and confirmed in their General Councils. That this may appear, I shall (of many hun∣dreds) give you some few, but pertinent and great Instances.

1. Aquinas† says, PRINCIPI∣BUS apostatantibus a Fide, non est o∣bediendum. And again, when such an Apostate Prince is excommuni∣cared; Ipso facto, ejus Subditi à do∣minio

& juramento fidelitatis ejus li∣berati sunt. And a little‖ before, Haereticus non solum excommunicari, sed juste occidi potest: & excommuni∣catus ulterius relinquitur judicio saeculd∣ri, à mundo exterminandus per mortem. His Commentators do believe, and (as far as they are able) justify this Doctrine.

2. Alphonsus à Castro is very large and learned on this Subject, and proves, first, That for Heresy a Father does lose the Dominion (and yet that Dominium is jure Natu∣rae Patri debitum) which he had over his Children; Propter Haeresin (says he) Pater amititt Jus quod habuit super filios, &c. And again, Do∣minium Politicum amittitur per Haere∣sin, it a quod Rex† factus Haereticus, ipso jure est Regno suo privatus, & Dux suo Ducatu, &c.

3. Nicolaus Eymericus in his Di∣rectorium Inquisitorion, Parte 2, & 3.

and Francis. Pegna his Commentator, do assert all and more than I have said, and (out of many Popish Canons and Councils, and Papal Con∣stitutions) fully prove it.

4. The Canon Law tells us, That Bona‖ Haereticorum sunt ipso jure confiscata; and not only so, but their Children are made incapable of any Benefice or Office Ecclesia∣stical or Civil; Haereticorum filii, us{que} ad secundam generationem, ad ali∣quod beneficium ecclesiasticum, seu pub∣licum officium ne admittantur, quod st secus actum fuerit, sit irritum. There are many other Constitutions in their† Canon Law, which expresly declare, that Hereticks (that is, such as deny any Article of their Popish Creed) lose all Dominion Ecclesiastical and Civil, of which they were justly possessed, before they fell from the Popish Faith into Heresy, as they call it.

5. Lastly, Their Concilium La∣teranum Magnum sub Innocentio III. in which there were (for so they tell us) about 1200 Fathers; I say, this great Council (which they ac∣knowledg to be General or Oecume∣nical) expresly declares, That an Heretick (tho a King or Emperour) does by his Heresy forfeìt all his Dominion; and therefore with them Dominion must be in Fide fundatum, that is, in their Apocryphal Popish Faith. For if believing, and con∣tinuing in that Faith, do preserve their Dominion; and the rejecting it by Heresy, forfelt it; then it ne∣cessarily and evidently follows, that their Roman Catholick Faith is the Foundation of their Domini∣on, and the Cause which preserves it, as Heres is the Cause why they lose it. And as this is their Popish impious Doctrine, that not only Subjects, but Supreme Governors,

Kings and Emperors, forfeit their Dominions by Heresy; so the Pra∣ctice of their Popes has in this case been suitably impious and sinful. I need not go far for evident In∣stances in particular: Paul‖ III. excommunicates our Henry 8, for Heresy, absolves his Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance, and declares him to have lost all Right to his Dominions. So Pius V. for the same reason, (because Q. Elizabeth was an Heretick) excommunicates and deposes her, and gives her Kingdoms to Philip the 2d of Spain, who came with his great Armada, and the Pope's Benediction (which brought the Curse of God upon him and his Fleet, for there is no Power or Policy against Provi∣dence) to take possession of it, in 1588. In prosecution of these Prin∣ciples, many hundred thousands have been actually murdered in the

Papacy; either, 1. By open War, as in France, and the Countries ad∣joining; in Ireland, in our late Re∣bellion, &c. 2. By their bloody Inquisition. 3. Or endeavour'd to be murdered by secret Conspira∣cies, as in our Gun-Powder Treason, and many Conspiracies against Q. Elizabeth, and our late gracious So∣veraign. But his Sacred Majesty having graciously promised to maintain the Church of England, as it is by Law establish'd, (who has ever been, and I doubt not, will be faithful in his Promises) this secures me against such Fears, and makes me willing to believe, that the impious Popish Principles shall never be put in Execution in England. Dirum omen, qui solus po∣test averruncet Deus.

And because in these Times, many who would be thought Wits, and who by the Vanity and Loosness of their Princi∣ples, have been tempted to malign the Clergy in general, and have made the Priest-craft a Term in vogue, it is thought seasonable to stop such Persons in their Career towards Atheism, by letting them see from what Forge the virulent Expression of Priest-craft came. Nor yet is this late Reverend Bishop's Testimony given in his Letter against the Rebellion of 41, fit to be conceal'd.

To ….. &c.

My Honoured Friend,

I Received yours, and return (what is most due for that and many more Civilities) my hearty Thanks. News here we have none, and so I cannot requite your Kindness, by sending you (what you so kindly send me) Intelligence. You have seen (I believe) Machiavel's Works (translated out of Italian or Latine) in English, which came out the last Year, 1675. The Printer (in the second Page) says, it was Licensed, but tells us not by whom. In the end of it, there is a Letter of Machi∣avel's (so 'tis pretended) in Vindica∣tion of his Writings. That Letter in∣deavours two things; 1. To mag∣nify Democracy, (as the best Govern∣ment) and decry Monarchy. 2. To decry the Clergy in general (not only

those of Rome) as a sort of People, so far from holy, that they have nothing left of Integrity or Humanity. He tells us of an execrable innate ill Quality in∣separable from the Priest-craft, and the Conjuration or Spell of their new∣nvented Ordination; and would have them rooted out so, as not one Sibra were left, &c. When twas printed, (by whose Authority or Advice I know not) a considerable Piece (one whole Leaf in Folio) was left out, which I have in MS. and do here enclosed send you a Copy of it. The business of that Piece which is left out, is to tell us, what is not Rebellion, (so he pretends;) and if his Principles be true, we have had no Rebellion in England this 40 Years. My humble Service to your Neigh∣bour, and my honoured Friend. I am in extreme haste, and

Q. Coll. Oxon. May 11, 1676.

Your affectionate Friend and Servant, Tho. Lincolne.

Notes

• In his Book entituled, Derer∣minatio Quae∣stionum qua∣rundem Theo∣logicarum, &c. printed at Cam∣bridg, 1634. Quaest. 30. pag. 130.
• †

  Concillum Constantieuse, Sess. 13.
• ‖

  Ibidem, Sess. 15.
• Ibidem, Sess. 8.
• †

  Aquinas 2. 2. Quaest. 10. Art. 2.
• ‖

  Aquinas 2. 2. Quaest. 11. A••t. 3. An Haereti∣ci sint toleran∣di?
• De justa Haereticorum pun∣itione, lib. 2. cap. 7. Operum pag. 1244. B.
• †

  I demibidem, pag. 1245. E.
• ‖

  Leg. Cum se∣cundum 19. de Haereticis in 60. & cap. Vergen∣tis 10. Extra. de Haereticis.
• Leg. Statutum 15. de Haereti∣cis in 60.
• †

  Vide praeci∣puc cap. ad abo∣lendam, 9. & cap. Excommu∣nica••us, 13. Extra. dl Haereticis
• ‖

  Vide Bullari∣um Romanum Romae, 1638. Tom. 1. pag. 514, 515. The Bull bears date, Jan. 3. 1538.
• Vide Bullam Pii V. in dicto Bullario, Tom. 2 pag. 229. The Bull is dated at Rome, 5 Cal. Maii, 1570.