HEAD. I. Concerning the Church, Her being a Guide.

1. More Ge­neral. Concerning the Church her being a Guide.1. CAtholicks do affirm, That our Saviour's gracious Pro­mises of Indefectibility, Matt. 16.18, 19.-28.19, 20. Jo. 14.16.26.-16.13. comp. Act. 15-28.-1 Jo. 5.20.27. Matt. 18.20. comp. 17, 18. 1. Tim. 3, 15.-2. Tim. 2.19. comp. 16, 17. Eph. 4.11.13. made to his Church are so to be understood, not only, that his Church shall never fail, or fall away as to Doctrine or Manners, if she do her duty, (as some expound them:) But also that his Church shall ne­ver fail to do her duty, for what is necessary to Salvation, and that these his words are not an hypothetical, but absolute Prediction that his Church shall never fail.

2. That such Promises belong to the Church Catholick as a Guide.

3. That this indefectibility of the Church as a Guide doth extend to an inerrability, as in all Fundamentals (in which if it errs it is no more a Church:) So in all other points, the contrary Tenents to which are dangerous to Salvation: For there seemeth to be no reasonable ground of a Restraint of our Saviour's Promises (made indefinitely) narrower then this.

4. Amongst the several ways whereby the Church Catho­lick may deliver her Judgment as a Guide (whether by Mes­sengers, Communicatory Letters, or Councils) that consent [Page 2]of judgment, or those Councils which are the most universal (as the times and places are capable thereof) and which are the most dignified also with the presence of the most eminent Church Magistrates convening therein, must needs be also the most supreme Guide of Christians.

5. That therefore no inferior, or subordinate Person, or Synod, when they are known to oppose this Supreme, may be taken by particular Persons for their Guide in Spiritual matters.

6. Nor yet a minor part of the Fathers, in these supreme Councils, differing from the rest, or out of these Councils, a minor part of Christian Churches opposing the rest, may be fol­lowed as our Guide: For so, notwithstanding these Guides ap­pointed us, we are left in the same uncertainty for our way, as if we had none, except only when all of them unanimously agree; and if, of two parties opposite, it is left to us to choose which we will, to guide us, it is all one for those points where­in these differ, as if we were left to guide our selves.

HEAD II. Concerning the Church Catholick of several Ages her being equally this Guide.

Concerning the Church Catholick of several Ages her being e­qually this Guide.1. IT is affirmed: That the Church Catholick of every Age, since the Apostles, and consequently the Church Catholick of this present Age, hath the same indefectibility in Truth, and authority in Goverment, as that of any other; (Both these [Indefectibility and Authority] being as necessa­ry for the preserving of Christianity in one Age as in another) and that our Saviour's Promise of Indefectibility is made good to the Church Catholick of every Age taken distinctly. Else his Promise that the Church of all Ages should not fail would sufficiently be verified, if that of any one Age hath not failed.

2. From hence it is gathered; That the present Catholick Church of any Age can never deliver any thing contrary to the Church of former Ages, in necessary matters of Faith or Manners.

[Page 3] 3. Supposing that in matters not so necessary, the Catholick Church of several Ages should differ; yet that the former having no more Promise of not erring herein then the later, therefore a Christian hath no greater security of the not erring of the one, then of the other; and therefore ought to acquiesce in the Judgment of the present, under whose regency and gui­dance God hath actually placed him.

4. If for the performance of Christian Obedience there be any necessity to have such Points, as these first decided, viz. What former Councils have been lawful and obliging, and what unlawful? What are fundamental and necessary Points of Faith, and what not necessary? What is the Doctrine of the Ancient Church in such and such Controversies? And what is the true sense of the Fathers Writings, or of a Coun­cils Decree? If these, I say, (or so far as these) are necessary to be known by him; it follows that in these, a Christian ought also to submit to the Resolutions of the present Church Ca­tholick, so far as it hath or shall decide them unto him ( i. e. to the Resolution of the supremest Authority thereof, that he can arrive to) and herein to acquiesce. For thus far he is secure, that in things necessary she cannot misguide him. And it seems unreasonable; That when she is appointed his unfailable Guide in all Points necessary (See Num. 1. Head. 1.) He, not she should undertake to judge what Points are ne­cessary, and what not; for this is in effect to choose himself, in what particular Points she shall guide him, and in what not? Unreasonable, when he is obliged to obey her Councils, that He, not she, should decide of those Councils which are lawful, and ought to be owned by her; for this is in effect to choose what Councils he pleaseth, to command his obedience, and exclude the rest. Unreasonable, when he is to learn of her what is the Doctrine and true Sense of the Holy Scriptures, that He, not she should judge what is the Doctrine of Anti­quity, or the true sense of former Fathers, or Councils, and wherein the present Church accords with, or departs from, them; i. e. that she, that is his Judge in greater Matters, may not be so in the less.

HEAD. III. Concerning the necessary Tradition of the former Ages of the Church, for all the Points of Faith that are taught in the present.

Concerning the necessary Tradition of the former Ages of the Church for all the points of Faith that are taught in the present.1. CAtholicks grant, That every Article of Faith is to all later Ages, derived either in express terms, or in its necessary Principles from the times of the Apostles.

2. And consequently, That no Article of Faith can be just­ly received in any later Age, which was not acknowledged as such in all the former; i. e. either in express terms, or in its Principles.

3. But 3 it is not hence necessary that every Article of Faith professed in a later Age, be professed also in express Terms in the former.

4. Nor 4 that all those Articles that are professed by a former Age must needs be found in those Writers we have of the same Age, For all their Writings are not now extant, nor all that they professed necessarily written; but only such things, of which the Suppression of Sects, instruction of the times, or the Author's particular design ministred occasion.

5. As that Rule of Vincentius Lerinensis is allowed most true; Illud tenendum quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omni­bus creditum est. So this, Nihil tenendum, nisi quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est, especially as it is restrained to, and required to be shewed and verified in the Writers of former Ages, and in these not in respect of Princi­ples of Faith, but all the deductions too, is affirmed most er­roneous; and such as if the omnibus and semper be not con­fined to the Members only of the Catholick Communion, one particular Church, or Person, in any Age, Heretical will void the Catholick Faith.

HEAD. IV. So also concerning the Canonical Scriptures.

Concerning the Canon of Scripture.1. CAtholicks do profess, That as the Church Governors, or General Councils, can make no new Article of Faith (See H. 5. Num. 2.) So neither new Canon of Holy Scrip­ture; and that no Book can be part of these Holy Scriptures now, which hath not been so always since the Apostles days. But notwithstanding this,

2. It must be granted; 1 That in some former Ages, and Churches fewer Books have been acknowledged, and received as the Canon of Scripture, than in some other later Churches and Ages; and some Books by some, in some Ages doubted of, which now all accept.

3. That where any such doubt ariseth, the Governours of the Church have Power and Authority (and that not more in one Age, than in another) to decide and declare, what particular Books are to be esteemed and received as Canonical, and descen­ding to Posterity as such from the Apostles times, and what not.

4. All those Books are received by Catholicks as Ca­nonical which the most or more General Councils [See the Council in Trullo, Can. 2. accepting the Council of Carthage, as well as of Laodicea. Council of Trent, Sess. 4. under Paul the Third; ratified in full Council Sess. ult. under Pius, and accepted by all the Western Churches, save the Re­formed: Or according to St. Austine's Rule, De Doctrina Christiana, 2. l. 8. c. In Canonicis autem Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quam plurimum authoritatem sequatur. Inter quas sane illae sunt, quae Apostolicas sedes habent & Epistolas [i. e. communicatorias] ab illis Ecclesus Apostolicis accipere me­ruerunt] or the more, and more dignified, Churches Catholick have received and used for such.

5. There is no more assent or belief required upon Ana­thema by any Council, concerning those Books of the Canon which the Reformed call in question than this: Ut pro Sacris [Page 6]& Canonicis suscipiantur. So Council Trid. Sess. 4. Si quis libros ipsos &c. pro Sacris & Canonicis non susceperit, Anathema sit. But these words by some imposed upon that Council, (See Bishop Consin, §. 81. p. 103.) Si quis omnes libros, pari Pie­tatis affectu, reverentia & veneratione pro Canonicis non suscepe­rit, Anathema sit, are not found there.

Next, Concerning the Sufficiency of this Canon of Scripture, as a Rule (or that, which contains in it the matter) of the Christian Faith.

Concerning the sufficien­cy of the holy Scriptures for the Rule of Faith.1. Catholicks concede the holy Scriptures to contain all those Points of Faith, that are simply necessary by all persons to be believed for attaining Salvation: α to contain them, either in the conclusion it self, or in the Principles, from which it is necessarily deduced. And contend that out of the Revelations made in the Scriptures, as expounded by former Tradition, the Church from time to time defines all such points; except it be such Practicals, wherein the question is only, whether they be lawful; for the deciding of which lawfulness, it is enough if it can be shewed that nothing in Scripture, as understood by Antiquity, is repugnant to them.

2. But, 2dly, The sense rather then the letter being God's word, they affirm; that all such Points are not so clearly contain­ed in the words of Scripture, as that none can mistake or wrest, the true sense of those words.

3. And therefore, 3dly, They affirm the Church's Tradition, or traditive Exposition, of these words of Scripture, necessa­ry for several Points to be made use of, for the discerning and retaining the true sense, which under those words is in­tended by the Holy Ghost, and was in their teaching delivered by the Apostles to their Successors: [wherein yet they make not the Tradition or delivering of this Sense, but the Sense de­livered (that is the Scripture still for these Points) their Rule, or that which contains the matter of their Faith: the oral expression or exposition thereof being only the same thing with its meaning or sense; and why are the Scriptures quoted by them but because the matter is there contained?]

4. They contend that there are many things, especially in [Page 7]the governing of the Church, in the Administration of the Sacraments and other sacred Ceremonies, which ought to be believed and practised, or conformed to, that are not expresly set down in the Holy Scriptures; but left in the Church by Apostolical Tradition, and preserved in the Records of An­tiquity, and constant Church-custome: in several of which Protestants also agree with them in the same Belief and Pra­ctice. β And amongst these Credends extra Scripturas is to be numbred the Article concerning the Canon of Scripture. γ

α S. Thom. 22.1. q. art. 9. primus, & ad primum. Art. 10. ad primum. In Doctrina Christi & Apostolorum [he means scripta] veritas fidei est sufficienter explicata: Sed, quia perversi homines Scripturas pervertunt, ideo necessaria fuit temporibus procedentibus explicatio fidei contra insurgentes errores.

Bellarm. de verbo Dei non scripto, 4. l. 11. c. Illa omnia scripta sunt ab Apostolis, quae sunt omnibus simpliciter necessaria ad salutem. ‘The main and substantial points of our Faith (saith F. Fisher in Bishop White, p. 12.) are believed to be Apostolical, because they are written in Scripture.’

γ See Dr. Feild, 4. l. 20. c. Dr. Taylor, Episcopacy asserted, §. 19. Reasons of the University of Oxford against the Cove­nant published 1647. p. 9. Where they speak on this manner. ‘Without the consentient judgment and practice of the Uni­versal Church (the best Interpreter of Scripture in things not clearly expressed, for Lex currit cum Praxi:) We should be at a loss in sundry Points both of Faith and Manners, at this day firmly believed, and securely practised by us; when by the Socinians, Anabaptists, and other Sectaries we should be called upon for our Proofs. As namely sundry Ortho­doxal Explications concerning the Trinity and Co-equality of the Persons in the God-head, against the Arians and other Hereticks; the number, use and efficacy of Sacraments; the Baptizing of Infants, National Churches, the Observation of the Lord's Day, and even the Canon of Scripture it self.’

γ Dr. Field, 4. l. 20. c. ‘We reject not all Tradition; for first we receive the number and names of the Authors of [Page 8]Books, Divine and Canonical, as delivered by Tradition. Mr. Chillingworth, 1. l. 8. c. When Protestants affirm against Papists that Scripture is, A Perfect Rule of Faith; their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed; For it can never be proved by Scripture to a Gain-sayer, That the Book called Scripture is the word of God.’

HEAD. V. Concerning the perpetual use and necessity in all Ages of New Determinations and Definitions in matter of Faith to be made by the Church.

Concerning the necessity of the Church in several Ages her making new Definitions in matter Faith.1. IT is granted by Catholicks, That all Points of Faith, necessary to be known explicitly by every one for at­taining Salvation, are delivered in the Scriptures, or other evident Tradition Apostolical: or also all those of speculative Faith so necessary delivered in the Apostles Creed. 2. Grant­ed also, That the Church Governours since the time of our Saviour and his Apostles have no power to Decree, or impose any new Doctrine as of Faith, or to be believed as a Divine Truth, which was not a Divine Truth formerly revealed either explicitly, in the like terms, as they propose it; or im­plicitly at least in its necessary principles, and premises out of which they collect it. Nor have power to decree or impose any new thing as of necessary Faith, or necessary to be be­lieved to Salvation: [that is] necessary absolutely to be, by all persons whatever (some of whom may be blamelesly igno­rant of what the Church hath defined) after such Decree, known or believed explicitely with reference to attaining sal­vation, which was not so necessarily formerly. 3. Yet not­withstanding this, Catholicks affirm, that there are many di­vine truths which are not explicitely and in terminis deliver­ed in the Scriptures, Apostles Creed, or express Tradition Apostolical, but only educible de novo by most necessary and [Page 9]certain consequence from those which are so delivered; which are necessary to be determined and delivered by the Church of later Ages, when contrary Errors happen to appear. 4. Accordingly they affirm, That, upon the appearance of se­veral such dangerous Errors, the Church did lawfully, in the four first General Councils, make and deliver some new De­finitions in matters of Faith; [ new taken in the sense ex­pressed above, Num. 2.]; did lawfully enlarge the former Creed; and require assent or belief (in the sense explained above, Num. 3.) unto these new Definitions under pain of Anathema. 5. They maintain, that all such dangerous Er­rors have not appeared within the times of the four first Ge­neral Councils, nor those Councils defined all divine Truths contrary to such Errors, and therefore that the Church in later Ages may use, against these, her Authority, to do the same things in her following Councils, as in the four first 6. And consequently that it is not reasonable to require of the Church, that her Definitions be shewed (I say not in their necessary Principles, on which she grounds them, but) in their formal Terms; either in the Scriptures, or her four first Councils, or in the now extant Writings of the first Ages. 7. Nor necessary; that every explicite Tradition Apostolical, and Principle that hath descended to the Church of later Ages most certainly thro all the former, must therefore be shewed to be asserted or mentioned in the Writers of the former, especially, where these very few.

HEAD. VI. Concerning Subordination of Ecclesiastical Authorities.

Concerning Subordina­tion of Ec­clesiastical Authorities.1. CAtholicks maintain a due Subordination both of Ec­clesiastical Persons among themselves; viz. Of Pres­byters to Bishops: Bishops to Metropolitans; Metropolitans to Primates, Primates to Patriarchs. And of Ecclesiastical Synods, viz. Diocesan to Provincial; Provincial to Patriar­chal, Patriarchal to General. 2. They willingly grant, That [Page 10]any particular Church, or Provincial or National Synod may lawfully make Definitions in matters of Faith, Reforma­tions of Errors and Manners, and other Ecclesiastical Consti­tutions for it self, without the concurrence or conjuncture at the same time of any other Church or Synod therewith. But 3ly, They deny, that any particular Church, or Provin­cial, or National Synod, may make such Determinations or Constitutions contrary to those of any present, or former Au­thority, or Synod, (or maintain them made contrary to such Synod present or future reversing them) to which Authority either Divine or Ecclesiastical Constitution hath made them Subordinate. For, without destroying Government, no Ec­clesiastical Law can be dissolved but by the same, or an equal Power to that, which made it; nor can a part, (suppose a Church Arian or Donatist) as it thinketh meet, from time to time, free it self from the Acts of the whole: especially in such things, wherein it can shew in it self no particular dif­ference, or disparity from the rest of the whole. And there­fore 4ly, They affirm that when Ecclesiastical Persons, or Synods, happen to oppose one another, Christian Obedience is still due only to the Superiour.

HEAD. VII. Concerning Ecclesiastical Supremacy.

Concerning Ecclesiasti­cal Suprema­cy.1. THE Catholick Church here on Earth is but one uni­ted State and Body (which all seem to confess, in that when any separation is made, every side endeavours to remove the cause thereof from themselves.) And it cannot reasonably be denyed, that All the Christian Churches in the world are capable of a Monarchical Government under one Bishop, as well as several Nations under one Emperor, or Se­cular Prince; and that such Government much conduceth to the Church's Peace, and to the preventing and suppression of Heresies and Schisms. 2. Catholicks perswaded therein both by the Scriptures, and Tradition do acknowledge; [Page 11]1. That St. Peter was made by Christ President and Head of the College of the Apostles, Matt. 16.19. Jo. 21.15. being compared with Gal. 2.7. And 2dly, That the Bishop of Rome is his Successor in such Supremacy; as likewise Successor to St. Paul the Great Apostle of the Gentiles; in that See, where­in the two great Apostles last resided, anciently called [...] Sedes Apostolica: And 3dly, That this Bishop hath by Divine Right, or if it were only by Ecclesiastical Constitution, and by ancient Tradition and Custome, it were sufficient, com­mitted to him a Supreme Authority over the Universal Church of Christ here on Earth, in the calling of Councils and in the approving, and confirming their Definitions, be­fore they can be universally obligatory; and in taking care in the Intervals of such Councils, of the due execution and observance of their Decrees; and in receiving Appeals from all parts of the Church in some matters of greater concern­ment. And 4ly, That, as no temporal Power may lawfully change, or annul any Ecclesiastical Constitutions, or Decrees made concerning the Government of the Church, or other matters meerly Spiritual; so neither may such temporal Power in particular abrogate this Ecclesiastical Authority, tho it were only conferred on the Bishop of Rome by the Church, so far as using a Jurisdiction meerly Spiritual in Matters that are so. 3dly, They willingly confess; That the Supreme Ec­clesiastical Authority cannot dispense with any Divine Law now (without such Dispensation) obliging; but only with Ecclesiastical Laws: Nor hath any Power over Princes, or their Subjects in Temporal matters; but only in Spiritual over all those, whether Princes or Subjects who are Members of the Church. 4ly, That there is no Decree of the Church or Council obliging any to maintain this Supreme Magistrate of the Church to be infallible in his Decrees; nor on the other side just cause for any therefore to withdraw their obedience to his Decrees because they hold him not infallible.

HEAD. VIII. Lastly, Concerning the necessary Amplitude of a lawful General Council,

Concerning the necessary Amplitude of a lawful General Council.IN which the Supreme Judgment of this united Body is placed.

1. It is not necessary to the composition of a lawful General Council that all the Clergy of the Christian world be assem­bled therein; or all the Bishops of this Clergy; or amongst the Bishops, some sent thither (the Delegates by the rest) from all particular Churches professing Christianity. For 1 upon these terms, the four first Councils cannot be allowed General. 2 Again; Thus it would be in the power of any particular Church, in detaining its Bishops, to hinder the Being, and the Benefit of a General Council. 3 Again, He­retical or Schismatical Churches being no part of the Church Catholick, the absence of their Bishops hinders not, but that the representative of the Church Catholick in such Council may be still compleat.

2 2. The Presence of the Delegated Bishops of all particular Catholick Churches, or Provinces, is not necessary in such Council to denominate it lawfully General; (it being pro­vided, that all are called to it, and none that come, excluded:) because this Absence of some may either be necessitated, from Poverty, distance of Place, Lets of temporal Magistrate; or voluntary also, out of some unlawful respect. Which Ab­sence of some few in comparison of the whole, if it can hin­der the necessary Generality of the Council, it is probable, that there will never want, within the Confines also of the Church Catholick, now spread thro the Dominions of several Princes of contrary interests, some either Bishops or Secular Governours that are averse from the meeting of such Council in respect of some Circumstances belonging to it; at least those of time, place, &c.

3 3. For these reasons therefore 3 such Council seems to be un­questionably [Page 13]General (not to say here, that none less their such can justly be so) where are present in person or by his Legates, the Bishop of the Prime Apostolick See; (without whom no such Council can be held) and by their Lieutenants at least, all or most of the other Patriarchs, such as are in Be­ing, and have some considerable part of the Church Catholick subjected unto them; [It is said most of them; for the pre­sence and concurrence of all of them was not thought necessa­ry neither in the third nor fourth of the allowed General Coun­cils.] And the Representatives of a considerably major part of the Catholick Provinces; and more especially the Repre­sentatives of the largest and most dignified of these Provinces.

4 4. In the Absence of some Patriarchs, or chief Churches in such Council, or in the presence there only of a smaller num­ber of Delegates from the greater, and more numerous Pro­vinces, and of a greater number from other less (as five or six Bishops only delegated from the Western Churches were present in the Council of Nice); or in any other deficiency of the representment of the greatest part of the Church Ca­tholick in this Assembly; yet when the Decrees, and Acts of such smaller part being sent and made known to the Absent, are both confirmed by the Bishop of Rome the Primate of the Patriarchs, and of the universal Church, and accepted also by the much major part of the Catholick Provinces, tho these be not accepted by some others of them, such Council ought ei­ther to be received as General, or as equivalent thereto, and the Acts thereof are obligatory to the whole Church Catho­lick. For seeing that if all the Provinces had convened in one Place and Body; the disagreeing votes of some Provinces in such Councils being fewer, and lesser could not have justly hindred, but that the contrary votes of the other much major part would have stood in force and obliged all to obedience, then neither can their dissent out of the Council be rationally pretended to hinder the same. And what engagement the several Provinces of the present Age have to such Council, the same also all future seem to have for the same reason till an equal Authority to that which established such Ecclesiasti­cal laws reverse them (which in matters of necessary Faith will never happen.) So the Arian Churches of the fifth Age [Page 14]are as much obliged to the Definitions of the Nicene Council as those of the fourth: And in any Age what means can there be of Preservation of Unity for matter of Faith in the Church Catholick, if a few, in comparison, will neither be regulated by any one Person or Head; Nor yet concluded by the much major part? Here by acceptation of the much major part of Catholick Provinces is understood none other necessary, then only a peaceful acquiescence in, and conformity to the De­crees of such Councils; and a not declaring against them, tho such Acceptation proceed not so farr, as to the passing of an Act to this effect in Provincial or National Synods. For, this last hath not been done to those Acts of Councils universally held General.

5 5. To go yet a little further. Considering the present Con­dition both of the Eastern Churches, and of such Patriarchs as are yet left (besides the Roman) such now rather in name, than in power, the paucity, poverty, and illiterature (necessi­tated by their great oppressions) of their Clergy, their in­capacity to assemble themselves even in lesser Synods for con­sultation (to say nothing here whether any of these Churches have declined from the former Definitions of the Church Ca­tholick, and so are become Heretical, and so uncapable of sitting in Ecclesiastical Synods) in these times a General Coun­cil such as ought to oblige may be well apprehended to re­ceive narrower bounds than formerly: And such a Council, where those who are Catholick in Eastern Churches, are wished for, invited, and if any come, not excluded; and to which all the Western Provinces yet flourishing in Religion, and not obstructed from meeting, are called, and in which the Representatives of the greatest part of them, joined with the Prime Patriarch are assembled; such Council I say, ought ei­ther to receive the denomination of General (especially as to these Doctrines wherein the Eastern Churches consent) or of the most General that the present times will afford; or at least of a Patriarchal and lawful Superiour Council: and so in the same measure accepted obligeth all the Provinces of the West to yield obedience thereto; and therefore in such an Age, for any Person or Church, that is a Member of this Western Body, to call for a larger Council than can be had, is only an Artifice [Page 15]to decline Judgment, and for any to Appeal to a future Coun­cil, which can be no larger than that past, to whose sentence they deny Submission, what is this but to renounce the Au­thority they appeal to? To which may be added that any Ap­peal to a future Council concerning such Controversies, where­in one knoweth the unanimous Doctrine of the much major part of the present Christian Churches, as well Eastern as Western, to be against him, seems bootless and affording no relief. Because such Council can consist only of the Gover­nours, and so of the judgments of such particular Churches put to together; and therefore such as the present Doctrine is of the major part of these Christian Churches, and of the several Bishops presiding in them, especially now after the cause, reasons, pretended demonstrations, of the dissenting Party for so many years, divulged, pleaded, considered, such we may presume will be that of the Council: For what can effect a Mutation of opinion in these Persons joined, which altereth nothing now, in them severed?

HEAD. IX. Concerning the Ʋnity of the Church, and of its Govern­ment, and Succession, in respect of Seculars.

§. 1 1. CAtholicks affirm: That the Church and Civil Socie­ties are two distinct Bodies, Concerning the Unity of the Church, and of its Government and Successi­on, in respect of Seculars. subject to their distinct Superiors, and that the Church Catholick is but one in many States.

Again; That the Civil State, entring into the Body of the Church, cannot thereby justly take from it any of its former Rights, which are instated upon it by our Lord; and which it did, or might justly exercise in such Civil State, before this State submitted it self to the Christian Faith. Nor yet the Church, entring into any State, take away any of the Civil Rights, or Authority, thereof; which is given to the Gover­nours of this State by God; and which it was justly possessed [Page 16]of, before the Church entred into it. Takes away, I say, none of these Rights, where Persons or Things, formerly Civil, do not, by their Dedication to God, become Sacred. Nor the Church callenge any Temporal Right or Authority, as to the use of the Secular Sword, which the State doth not first invest it with. α And, That, therefore, these two Bo­dies may always without any jealousy, most peaceably consist together; Because the Principles of Christianity do most en­tirely secure and preserve all the Secular Rights of Princes: And, because in leaving only to Princes the use of the Tem­poral Sword, the Church can never, in any difference that happens, be the invading, but only the suffering Party.

§. 2 2. Therefore, 2dly, in consequence hereof, They hold; That the Subordinations of Ecclesiastical Government, such as are necessary for the exclusion of Heresies, and Schisms, and conservation of the Churches Unity, Uniformity, and Peace, throughout several Nations; And these which are in­stituted by Christ, or his Apostles; or are afterward estab­lished in the Church Catholick by Ecclesiastical Canons, made by the chief Representative thereof. (I mean, such Canons, as can no way be justly pretended to do any wrong to the Civil Government) They hold, That such Subordinations of Church-Government cannot justly be changed; nor the observance of such Constitutions be abrogated, or prohibited by any Secular Supreme Christian or Heathen, within their own Dominions.

§. 3 3. Since it is clear, That Christ sent his Ministers to preach the Gospel, and do other meerly Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Offices in all Nations; and in those Nations too, then, as now, under some Supreme Civil Governor; which Offices also those Ministers did accordingly perform for three hundred years, tho the said Governors prohibited and opposed them. [So, for Example, the Apostles, and other Church-Gover­nors, in those times assembled themselves in a Council at Je­rusalem to consult and give orders throughout the Churches concerning the Abrogation of former Legal Ceremonses. So St. Paul in those times gave Commission to Timothy for the [Page 17]of the Christian Church in Ephesus; to Titus for the governing those in Creet; to ordain Clergy thro the Ci­ties there; and in these Provinces to receive Accusations; hear Witnesses; promulgate the Doctrines formerly received: silence False-teachers; excommunicate Offenders, &c. 1 Tim. 1.3.—5.19. 2. Tim. 2.2. Tit. 1.5.11.—3.10. And so he gave order also to them to hold publick Assemblies, 1. Cor. 5.4. Heb. 10.25. for the common Worship of God, and for the exercising of the forenamed Acts. And so the Successors of these first Church Governors also used the same authority for those three first Centuries in all dominions distributed into several Provincial and Parochial [or Diocesan] Governments, tho the Secular Powers frequently resisted, imprisoned, exe­cuted the Church Officers for it.] These things therefore thus granted and allowed, hence they infer, that, as a Hea­then Prince cannot justly prohibit all Christian Clergy; so neither can a Christian Prince, amongst this Clergy, justly prohibit all those, whom only these Ecclesiastical Magistrates do judge Orthodox, and worthy, from professing, and pub­lishing the Orthodox Faith, and otherwise officiating in Di­vine matters within his Dominions. Else, as where the Prince is Heathen; Christianity cannot be propagated in his Territo­ries against Infidelity; so where the Christian Prince hap­pens to be Heretical; (suppose an Arian, as the Emperour Constantius was) the Truth of Christianity cannot be pre­served in his dominions against Heresy; or where he Schis­matical, the Unity of the Churches Communion cannot be preserved against the Sects, in his dominion. For Confir­mation of these three preceedent Theses see at large the Prote­stant Concessions in letter δ. To which is annexed an An­swer to all their Pleas and Defences made by them for a law­ful Reformation of Ecclesiastical Persons and Matters by the Secular Power.

§. 4 4 Consequently to the Precedents: seeing that, as there are many temporal Jurisdictions descending on the Church, originally from the Secular Power, so there are also other spiritual Jurisdictions, primitively belonging to, and exer­cised by, the Church, and held from the donation of our [Page 18]Lord, such as the forementioned, [ viz. ‘To hold publick Re­ligious Assemblies; to promulgate the Doctrines formerly delivered; to administer the Sacraments of the Church; to receive Accusations; hear Witnesses; in point of Heresy and Schism to bind, absolve; to silence False-teachers; ex­communicate obstinate Offenders; and that in all Nations, and within any Princes Dominions whatever.]’ They ac­cordingly affirm. 1 1. That no Secular Power can bestow, or derive their spiritual Jurisdictions on any person, but that, to be in such dominions by any person lawfully executed these must first be conferred on him by the Clergy. 2 2dly, That the act only, of some inferior Clergy against their Canonical Superiors, or of the minor part of Clergy against the major can be no legitimate act of the Clergy, for conferring such spiritual Jurisdictions; but the contrary to it is so.

§. 5 And hence, 5ly, They gather; That, tho Princes, for the greater security of their Civil Government, and the many se­cular obligations which the Church hath to them, may no­minate, and present to the Clergy and Ecclesiastical Magi­strates such persons, as they think most meet to receive from the Church these spiritual Jurisdictions within their domini­ons: yet, if any Secular Power should possess such person of these Jurisdictions in any Province either by his own sole authority, or by the concurrence of some inferior Clergy, or minor part of such Province, whom the major part of the Cler­gy of such Province, or the due Ecclesiastical Superiors (to whom according to Church Canons the conferring of such Jurisdiction doth belong) to judge uncapable or unfit; and therefore refuse the collation of them on such a subject, They affirm such an Act of the Prince, or Clergy assisting him, to be unlawful; and that it must needs open a way to all He­resy and Schism, and dissolve the Faith, and Unity of the Church Catholick. Neither, can any such Person so intro­duced, tho he be validly ordained, justly exercise such spiri­tual Jurisdictions; neither do all such people, as know, re­ceive any salvifical benefit by, his unlawful administration to them of the Church's Sacraments, or, at least, of the Sacra­ment of Penance, and Absolution, by reason of a defect of a [Page 19]right disposition in the Suscipients, and the great guilt they contract in applying themselves to such a Person: unless this be done in a case of necessity, when there is no Catholick Clergy to repair to for such Offices. So, had Novatianus, ordained and adhered to by three, or four Bishops, been upon this setled by a Christian Emperor in the Apostolick Chair against Cornelius, ordained and confirmed in these Jurisdicti­ons by all the rest of the Body of the Roman Episcopal Clergy; yet Novatianus would, no less for this, have been still a Schis­matick and an Usurper.

§. 6 6. Hence also, should a Christian Secular Power (suppose, Arian) refuse to nominate, and present any person to the Clergy to be admitted to such Office and Jurisdictions within his dominions, save such as are Arians, here the Church-Go­vernors, authorized by the Canons, ought to take the same care for these Christian Provinces in such dominions in the times of Christian, as they did in times of Heathen Princes; in appointing such other Pastors over the Flocks of Christ there, as will still preserve the Faith and Unity of the Catho­lick Church. And, should the Church-Governors de facto ap­point none, because they see the possession of such place is by violence hindred; yet will he, who, in the manner aforesaid, invades such office, be as much an Usurper, as if he entred upon a Chair already possessed; when it is only by reason of him, and such like, that those men are kept out, who might rightly possess it; and it is to be reckoned the same delin­quency, as if such Chair had actually two Bishops.

§. 7 7. They hold, That, to the Exercise of the Episcopal Function (in any Province) so, that it may continue unde­vided from the Unity of the Church-Catholick, and so, that the Subjects of such Province may receive any benefit thereby, two things are required according to the ancient Laws of the Church, made for preserving Unity for ever. 1. Three Bi­shops to confer the Order; or, in some dispensable cases, one at least. 2. The Consent, at least non-opposition, of the ma­jor part of the Bishops of the same Province to such Ordina­tion, and the Licence or Confirmation of the Metropolitan (or [Page 20]yet higher, of the Patriarch himself; β it mattering little as to preserving the Church's Unity, so long as the Metro­politans, and their actions, are subjected to their Patriarch, whether one, or both, or the higher, without the lower, do ratify the Election of the Bishops:) So that any Ordination made by three or four Bishops of a Person wanting the fore­said Consent and Confirmation from Superiors, tho it be va­lid, the Order is frustrate, from any Jurisdiction, or lawful exercise thereof (in the same manner, as that of a true Bi­shop is frustrate when afterwards he is justly excommunicated) as being given, and received, out of the Unity of the Church Catholick; and as exposing the Church to all the divisions and factions, which the Lust of two or three Ecclesiasticks, assisted with a Secular Power seduced, may please to set up.

§. 8 8. It seems evident from Antiquity, as likewise confessed by learned Protestants; that, as the Bishops could not exer­cise, in any Diocess, a lawful Spiritual Jurisdiction, without the Metropolitans Licence, and Confirmation; so neither could the Metropolitan, in any Province, without that of the Pa­triarch γ. There seeming as great reason, and necessity of this, for preserving the Unity of the Church Catholick a­mongst the Metropolitans, and Primates in the several Pro­vinces thereof, as amongst Bishops in the several Diocesses. And therefore, anciently these Metropolitans obtained also the consent of their Co-Metropolitans in other Provinces, by the Literae Communicatoriae, or formatae of those Bishops, upon the sending to them a Copy of their Faith (according as it was setled, and professed in the several Articles thereof, exclu­sively to Heresies in those present times) and a Testimonial of their legitimate Election. Which also may be said of the Patriarchs themselves; who upon their sending the like Con­fessions and Informations, received a Confirmation from the Primate of them, the Roman Bishop, and the other Co-Pa­triarchs.

§. 9 9. As for the Supreme Bishop of the Catholick Church, who, therefore could not receive this his Authority and Ju­risdiction from any Superior; yet anciently neither was he [Page 21]conceived to have any lawful Jurisdiction, unless possessed thereof by the designation, and suffrage of the major part at least of the Clergy, and Bishops of the Roman Province (in later times, for peace sake, tranferred upon the Cardinals.) To which was usually added also the Communicatory Letters of other Patriarchs and Primates, upon his professing to them if, need were, the Catholick Faith of his Ancestors, and the legalness of his Election. And if, in latter times, the manner of his Investiture with this Supreme Authority▪ and Jurisdiction be not altogether the same; yet since we find in all ages a major part of Christian Churches (such as are guilty of no ancient condemned Heresy) adhering to the Ro­man, Bishop, and Faith, when as, meanwhile, several of the other Patriarchs have been condemned for Hereticks; we may presume also, that not only the Clergy of the Roman Province, but all, or at least a major part of, the Governors of these Churches are and have been, from age to age, ready to afford the same Testimony to his just, and Canonical Autho­rity. And these seem to be the necessary Foundations and Pillars that support the Unity of the Church Catholick.

α. α Bellarm de Rom. Pontif. 5. l. 3. c. Ex Scripturis nihil habemus nisi data Pontifici claves regni caelorum: §. 10 de clavibus regni terrarum nulla mentio fit, Traditio Apostolica nulla. Quando Rex fit Christianus, non perdit regnum terrarum, quod jam obtine­bat. (Suitable to the Church Hymn, Crudelis Herodes Deum Regem venire quid times? Non eripit Mortalia, &c.) And the same Cardinal quoting a Passage out of an Epistle of Pope Ni­cholaus. Quicquid (saith he) Imperatores habent, dicet Ni­cholaus, a Christo eos habere. Peto igitur; vel potest summus Pontifex auferre a Regibus & Imperatoribus hoc, tanquam Summus ipse Rex, & Imperator, aut non potest? Si potest, ergo est major Christo; si non potest ergo non habet vere potestatem regiam. Neither is any such power in Temporals absolutely necessary to the Church in order to Spirituals, without the exercise of which power the primitive Church, tho most grievously oppressed by Secular States, yet enjoyed this Go­vernment in Spirituals perfect and entire.

And concerning the Obligation of the Clergy, also tho se­questred [Page 22]to God's Service, to the obedience of the Civil Laws of Princes, together with their other Fellow Subjects: Thus the same Cardinal, De Clericis, 1. l. 28. c. Clerici, praeterquam quod Clerici sunt, sunt etiam Cives & Partes quaedam Reipublicae politicae: igitur ut tales vivere debent civilibus legibus, non sunt autem aliae, ut nunc ponimus, nisi quae a Politico Magistratu sunt latae; igitur illas Clerici servare dehent, alioqui magna per­turbatio & confusio in Republica oriretur &c. quoting St. Chry­sostome in 13. ad Rom. Christi Evangelio non tolli politicas leges, & ideo debere etiam Sacerdotes & Monachos eis parere: and parere not only in a directive, but coactive way, not only to be guided in their duty by the laws, but forced to obedi­ence of it. But this Coaction to proceed not from the Civil, but Ecclesiastical Magistrate to whom the Civil in honour to the Clergy hath remitted it, till in case of hainous Crimes after degradation from the Sacerdotal Dignity, they are returned to the Secular Justice.

β. β See Canon Apostol. 35. Episcopos gentium singularum scire convenit, quis inter eos primus habeatur: quem velut caput ex­istiment, §. 11 & nihil amplius praeter ejus conscientiam gerant, quam illa sola singuli, quae parochiae propriae & villis, quae sub ea sunt, competunt. Sed nec ille praeter omnium conscientiam faciat aii­quid in eorum parochiis. Sic enim unanimitas erit.

Concil. Nicen. Can. 4. Episcopum convenit maxime quidem ab omnibus, qui sunt in Provincia Episcopis ordinari. Si autem hoc difficile fuerit aut propter instantem necessitatem, aut propter itineris longitudinem, tribus tamen omnimodis in idipsum con­venientibus, & absentibus quoque pari modo decernentibus, & per scripta consentientibus, tunc ordinatio celebretur. Firmitas autem corum quae geruntur per unamquamque Provinciam Me­tropolitano tribuatur Episcopo. Can. 5. De his qui. Communione privantur seu ex clero seu ex laico, ordine ab Episcopis per unam­quamque Provinciam, sententia regularis obtineat, ut hi qui ab­jiciuntur ab aliis non recipiantur.

Can. 6. Antiqua consuetudo servetur per Aegyptum, Lybiam, & Pentapolim, ita ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem; quia & urbis Romae Episcopo parilis mos est: Similiter autem & apud Antiochiam, ceterasque Provincias [Page 23]suis privilegia serventur Ecclesiis: illud autem generaliter clarum est, quod si quis praeter sententiam Metropolitani fuerit factus Episcopus hunc magna Synodus definivit Episcopum esse non opor­tere. Sin autem communi cunctorum Decreto rationabili, & secundum Ecclesiasticam Regulam comprobato, duo aut tres prop­ter contentiones proprias contradicant, obtineat sententia pluri­morum.

I may spare the recital of any more, tho the same is frequent­ly iterated in the following Councils. See Conc. Laodic. c. 12. 2. Conc. Arelat. c. 5. 2. Carth. c. 12. Rhegiense, c. 1. Cabilon. c. 10. Epist. Synodal, Conc. Romani sub Siricio Papa, c. 1. and see what is said of this matter in Considerations on the Council of Trent, §. 10. &c. See likewise the Cautions used by the Council of Trent, Sess. 24. De Reform. c. 1. And Sess. 22. De Reform. c. 2. concerning the approbation of such persons as are nomi­nated for Bishopricks by other Ecclesiastical Superiors, and so the Collation of these Preferments upon them by the Pope.

§. 12 This Confirmation of all Ordinations by their Ecclesiasti­cal Superiors for preserving the Churches Unity, is freely ac­knowledged by Mr. Thorndike in his Book of the Rights of the Church, 5. c. p. 248. Where he mentions also some of the former Canons. ‘The fourth Canon (saith he) of the Coun­cil of Nice, requireth that all Bishops be ordained by a Coun­cil of the Bishops of the Province [si fieri potest] which Council because it cannot always be had, therefore it is Pro­vided, [there] That two or three may do the work the rest consenting and authorizing the Proceeding. And this is that which the ordinance of the Apostles hath provided to keep the visible Communion of the whole Church in Unity. But when among the Bishops of any Province, part consent to Ordination, part not; the Unity of the Church cannot be preserved unless the consent of the whole follow the con­sent of the greater part. And therefore; It seemeth that there can no valid Ordination be made, where the greater number of the Bishops of the Province dissent; which is con­firmed by the Ordination of Novatianus for Bishop of Rome: which tho done by three Bishops, yet was the foundation of that great Schisme, because Cornelius was ordained on the other side by sixteen.’

[Page 24] After which in Application of these things to the Ordi­nations, made in the Church England at the Reformation, he hath this Reflection, Ibid. p. 250. ‘Now it is manifest (saith he) that the Ordinations by which that Order (of Bishops) is propagated in England at, and since, the Reformation, were not made by consent of the greater part of the Bishops of each Province, but against their mind tho they made no con­trary Ordinations. And by the same means it is manifest, that all those Ecclesiastical Laws, by which the Reforma­tion was established in England [ i. e. by these new Bishops were not made by a consent capable to oblige the Church, if we set aside the Secular Power that gave force unto that which was done [by the Bishops] contrary to that Rule wherein the Unity of the Church consisteth. But in other parts the Reformation was so far from being done by Bishops and Presbyters, or any consent which was able to con­clude the Church, by the constitution of the Church, that the very Order of Bishops is laid aside and forgot, if not worse; i. e. detested among them. Upon which precedent it sounds plausibly with the greatest part among us: that the Unity of the whole being [thus] dissolved by the Reformation [ i. e. by the Reformers either being against Bishops, or being Bishops made against the consent of the former Bishops] the Unity of the Reformation cannot be preserved, but by dissolving the Order of Bishops among us.’ The like he saith before, p. 248. ‘If the Clergy of that time [ i. e. in the beginning of Qu. Elizabeth's Reformation] had been supported in that Power which by the Premises [set down and justified in his Book] is challenged on behalf of the Clergy, this Reformation could not have been brought to pass.’

Yet notwithstanding this Learned man thinks himself still secure in that Communion; by imagining first that the Apo­stolical Succession of the governing Clergy, which Canoni­cally concludes the whole, hath in several things violated Christ's Laws [but, quo Judice will any such thing be cleared, See below, §. 37.] And 2dly, that in any such case the Secu­lar Power may oppose their Authority, the this established by the Apostles, viz. So often as either the Apostles Ordi­nance [Page 25]or Christ's Laws must necessarily one of them be in­fringed.

γ γ See Conc. Nicen. c. 6. Conc. Chalced. c. 28. And Act. 16. —8. Gen. Conc. c. 10.17.21. Where (in c. 17.) is men­tioned the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council, §. 13 and thus explained. Qua pro causa & haec magna & sancta Synodus tam in seniori, & nova Roma [Constantinopoli] quam in sede Antiochiae & Hierosolymorum, priscam consuetudinem decernit in omnibus conservari; ita ut earum Praesules universorum Metrapolitano­rum, qui ab ipsis promoventur, & sive per manus impositionem, sive per Pallii dationem, Episcopalis dignitatis firmitatem accipi­ant, habeant potestatem; viz. ad convocandum eos, urgente ne­cessitate, ad Synodalem Conventum: vel etiam ad coercendunt illos & corrigendum, cum fama eos super quibusdam delictis-forsi­tan accusaverit.

Of which Canon thus Dr. Field, p. 518. ‘Patriarchs were by the Order of the 8th General Council, Can. 17. to confirm the Metropolitans subject unto them either by the imposition of hands or giving the Pall. And l. 5. c. 37. p. 551. 'With­out the Patriarchs consent none of the Metropolitans sub­ject unto them, might be ordained. And what they bring (saith he) proves nothing that we ever doubted of; For we know the Bishop of Rome hath the right of confirming the Metropolitans within the Precincts of his own Patriarchship, as likewise every other Patriarch had.’ And thus Bishop Bramhal, ( Vindic. c. 9. p. 259. &c.) ‘What power the Me­tropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province, the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans, and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate. And after­wards, Wherein then consisteth Patiarchal Authority? In ordaining their Metropolitans, or confirming them.’

δ. δ Bishop Carleton in his Treatise of Jurisdiction Regal and Episcopal, 4. c. p. 42. §. 14 ‘External Jurisdiction is either defini­tive or mulctative. Authority definitive in matters of Faith and Religion belongeth to the Church. Mulctative power is understood either as it is with coaction [ i. e. using Secular force] or as it is referred to Spiritual Censures. As it stand­eth [Page 26]in Spiritual Censures it is the right of the Church, and was practised by the Church when without Christian Magistrate, and since. But coactive Jurisdiction was always understood to belong to the Civil Magistrate, whether Christian or Heathen.’

Ibid. 1. c. p. 9. ‘As for Spiritual Jurisdiction standing in Examination of Controversies of Faith, judging of Heresies, deposing of Hereticks, Excommunications of notorious and stubborn offenders, Ordination of Priests and Deacons; In­stitution and Collation of Benefices, and Spiritual Cures this we reserve entire to the Church; which Princes cannot give to, nor take from, the Church.’

‘And by this Power (saith he, 4. c. p. 39.) without Co­action, the Church was called, Faith was planted, Devils were subdued, the Nations were taken out of the power of darkness, the world reduced to the obedience of Christ; by this Power, without coactive Jurisdiction, the Church was governed for 300 years together.’ But if it be enquired what was done when the Emperors were Christian; and when their coactive Power came in?] ‘The Emperors (saith he, p. 178.) never took upon them by their Authority to define matters of Faith and Religion, that they left to the Church: But when the Church had defined such Truths against He­reticks, and had deposed such Hereticks; then the Empe­rors concurring with the Church by their Imperial Consti­tutions, did by their coactive Power give strength to the Canons of the Church,’

§. 15 Mr. Thorndike ( Rights of the Church, 4. c. p. 234.) ‘The Pow­er of the Church is so absolute and depending on God alone, that if a Sovereign professing Christianity should forbid the profession of that Faith, or the Exercise of those Ordinances which God hath required to be served with [The judgment of which Faith and Ordinances what they are, Protestants also affirm to belong to the Clergy] or even the Exercise of that Ecclesiastical Power which shall be necessary to pre­serve the Unity of the Church, it must needs be necessary for those, that are trusted with the Power of the Church, not only to disobey the Commands of the Sovereign, but to use [Page 27]that Power, which their Quality in the Society of the Church gives them to provide for the subsistence thereof without the assistance of Secular Powers. A thing manifestly sup­posed by all the Bishops of the ancient Church in all those actions, wherein they refused to obey their Emperors se­duced by Hereticks [refused to obey them in forbearing to teach still, and publish the Catholick Doctrine, when pro­hibited by them] and to suffer their Churches to be regu­lated by them, to the prejudice of Christianity. Which actions whosoever justifies not, he will lay the Church open to ruine, whensoever the Soveraign Power is seduced by Hereticks. And such a difference falling out [ i. e. between Prince and Clergy in Church matters] as that to particular persons it cannot be clear who is in the right; It will be re­quisite (saith he) for Christians in a doubtful case, at their utmost perils to adhere to the Guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereign, tho to no other effect, than to suffer [if the Prince impose it] for the Exercise of their Christi­anity, and the maintenance of the Society of the Church in Unity.’ See the same Author, Epilog. 1. l. 19. c. The con­tents whereof touching this subject, he hath briefly expressed thus. ‘That that Power which was in the Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Sovereign. That the interest of Secular Power, in determining matters of Faith, presupposeth the Society of the Church, and the Act of it.’ And there he giveth reasons why the Church is to decide matters of Faith, rather than the State; supposing neither to be infallible. Ibid. ( c. 20. p. 158.) he saith, That ‘he, who disturbs the Communion of the Church, remains punishable by the Secular power (to inflict temporal penal­ties) not absolutely because it is Christian; but upon sup­position that this temporal power maintaineth the true Church. And afterward. That the Secular Power is not able of it self to do any of those Acts, which the Church ( i.e. those who are qualified by, and for the Church) are quali­fied by vertue of their Commission from Christ to do, without committing the sin of Sacrilege (in seizing into its own hands. the Powers, which by God's Act, are constituted and there­fore consecrated and dedicated to his own service) not sup­posing [Page 28]the free Act of the Church, without fraud and vio­lence [concurring] to the doing of it.’ Now among the Acts, and Powers belonging to the Church (which he calls a Cor­poration) by divine right and appointment, he names these 1. l. 16. c. p. 116. The Power of making Laws within them­selves [and then, I suppose of publishing them (made) among all the Subjects of the Church in whatever Princes Domini­ons; else why make them?] of electing Church Governors (of which see 3. l. 32. c. p. 398.) and of Excommunicating, and (3. l. 32. c. p. 385.) The Power to determine all mat­ters, the determination whereof is requisite to maintain the Communion of Christians in the service of God: and [the Power] to oblige Christians to stand to that determination un­der pain of forfeiting that Communion. The Power of holding Assemblies [which must be by meeting together in some place or other, and by some Church Authority calling them] Of which he speaks thus, 1. l. 8. c. p. 53. ‘I must not omit to alledge the Authority of Councils, and to maintain the Right and Power of holding them, and the obligation, which the Decrees of them, regularly made, is able to create, to stand by the same Authority of the Apostles.’

And afterward, ‘I, that pretend the Church to be a Cor­poration founded by God upon a Priviledge of holding visi­ble Assemblies for the common Service of God, notwith­standing any secular force prohibiting the same, must needs maintain by consequence that the Church hath Power in it self to hold all such Assemblies, as shall be requisite to maintain the common Service of God and the Unity in it, and the or­der of all Assemblies that exercise it. Thus Mr. Thorndike.’

§. 16 Dr. Taylor in Episcopacy asserted (published by the Kings Authority) after that ( p. 236.) he hath laid this ground for the security of Secular Princes; That since that Christ hath professed that his Kingdome is not of this world, that Govern­ment which he hath constituted de novo doth no way make any Entrenchment on the Royalty, hath these Passages, p. 237. he saith, ‘That those things which Christianity (as it prescinds from the interest of the Republick) hath introduced, all them and all the causes emergent from them, the Bishop is [Page 29]Judge of. Such are causes of Faith; ministration of Sacra­ments and Sacramentals, Subordination of inferiour Clergy to their Superiours, Rites, Liturgies, &c. As for the Rights of the Secular Power he layeth down this Rule, p. 236. Whatsoever the Secular Tribunal did take Cognizance of, before it was Christian, the same it takes notice of, after it is Christened. And these are, all Actions civil, all pub­lick Visitations of Justice, all breach of municipal Laws. These the Church (saith he) hath nothing to do with, un­less by the favour of Princes these be indulged to it [these by their favour then, indulged, but not so the former.]’ Ac­cordingly, p. 239. he saith, ‘Both Prince and Bishops have indicted Synods, in several ages, upon the exigente of se­veral occasions, and have several Powers for the engage­ments of clerical obedience and attendance upon such So­lemnities. That the Bishops Jurisdiction hath a Compul­sory, derived from Christ only, viz. Inflictions of Censures by Excommunications, or other minores plagae, which are in order to it And that the King is supreme of the Jurisdicti­on, viz. that part of it, which is the external Compulsory [ i. e. as he saith before] to superadd a temporal penalty upon Contumacy, or some other way abet the Censures of the Church. P. 243. he saith, That in those cases in which by the law of Christ Bishops may, or in which they must use, Excommunication, no Power can forbid them. For what power Christ hath given them, no man can take away. And p. 244. That the Church may inflict her Censures upon her Delinquent Children without asking leave; that Christ is her [...] for that, he is her warrant and security. And p 245. That the King's supreme Regal Power, in causes of the Church consists in all things, in which the Priestly office is not precisely by God's law, employed for regiment and care of Souls [I suppose those he named before, p. 237.] and in these also, that all the external Compulsory and Juris­diction [as he expoundeth [...] before, p. 239.] is the King's.’ And lastly, p. 241. he saith, ‘That the Catholick Bishops [in time of Arian Emperors] made humble and fair remon­strance of the distinction of Powers and Jurisdiction; that as they might not intrench upon the Royalty, so neither be­tray [Page 30]the right, which Christ had concredited to them to the encroachment of an exterior Jurisdiction and Power [ i. e. the Royal.]’

§. 17 Bishop Bramhal frequently stateth the Primacy or Supre­macy of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters thus. Schisme Guard­ed, p. 61. he saith. ‘All that our Kings assume to themselves is the external Regiment of the Church by coactive Power, to be exercised by persons capable of the respective branches of it.’ And p. 63. quoting the 37 Article of the Church of England, where the King's Supremacy is expressed thus. ‘To preserve or contain all Estates and Orders committed to their trust, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in their duties, and restrain contumacious offenders with the Civil Sword ’[in which restraining offenders, and containing all in their duty with the Civil Sword, the Prince is willingly acknowledged by Catholicks the, and the only Supreme] he comments thus upon it. ‘You see the Power is Political, the Sword is Political, all is Political; our Kings leave the Power of the Keys, and Jurisdiction Spiritual, purely to those to whom Christ hath left them.’ And in answer to another Passage in the 37th Article, and also in the Oath of Supre­macy, wherein the Bishop of Rome is denied to have any Jurisdiction in the Kingdome of England; he distinguisheth between a Jurisdiction, (suppose to excommunicate, absolve, degrade) purely Spiritual governing Christians in the inte­rior Court of Conscience, and extending no further, and an exterior coactive Jurisdiction exercised in the exterior Eccle­siastical Courts; the exterior Coaction of which, he saith, is originally Political, and so belonging only to, and held from, the Prince, His words are, Schisme Guarded, p. 160. ‘Our Ancestors [in denying any Jurisdiction that is Patriarchal to the Pope] meant the very same thing that we do: our only difference is in the use of the words, Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction, which we understand properly of Jurisdiction purely Spiritual, which extends no further then the Court of Conscience; But by Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction they did understand Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the exterior Court, which, in truth is partly Spiritual, partly Political. [Page 31]The interior habit, which enableth an Ecclesiastical Judge to excommunicate or absolve, or degrade, is meerly Spiritual; but the exterior Coaction is originally Political. So our Ancestors cast out external Ecclesiastical coactive Jurisdiction; the same do we; They did not take away from the Pope the power of the Keys, or Jurisdiction purely Spiritual: no more do we. And Ibid. p. 119. We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them, and executing of them, but with this caution, that to make them Laws [he means such laws, for observance of which secular coaction might be used] the con­firmation of the Prince was required; and to give the Bishop a coactive Power to execute them, the Prince's Grant or Concession was needful [So that Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the Kings Dominions, and use the Ecclesiastical Censures by their own Authority, without the Prince; only they can use no Coaction by pecuniary, or cor­poral punishments &c. in the Execution of them without his; which is granted to him.]’

Again; Vindic. of the Church of England, p. 269. he saith, ‘That in Cases that are indeed Spiritual or meerly Ecclesi­astical, such as concern the Doctrine of Faith or Administra­tion of the Sacraments, or the ordaining or degrading of Ec­clesiastical persons, Sovereign Princes have (and have only) an Architectonical Power to see, that Clergy-men do their Duties [ i. e. not what he, but what their Superiors in Spiri­tual matters, judge to be so.] And Schisme Guarded, p. 136. We have nothing concerning any Jurisdiction meerly Spiri­tual in all the Statutes of Henry the Eighth. They do all in­tend coactive Jurisdiction in the exterior Court of the Church. We give the supreme Judicature of Controversies of Faith to a General Council, and the supreme Power of Spiri­tual Censures which are coactive, only in the Court of Conscience [and suitably, in the interval of General Coun­cils he must allow to National Synods the same Judicature, and Censures, abstracting from the Prince.]’ Ibid. p. 92. he saith, ‘We see the Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods, and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors.’ [And then may not they do the same still? Both assemble [Page 32]Synods, as the Apostles did at Jerusalem, Act. 15. And make Canons: and then also publish them made, as the Apostles did, when an Heretical Prince concurreth not with, or also opposeth them? Provided that there be no apparent danger to the Prince or State, of any Sedition by such meeting.] ‘But they had no coactive Power to compel any man against his will.’ [This therefore is the Power, which Emperors when become Christian, and her Subjects, bring in, and add to the Church, without taking away from it any of that Power, which before, from Christ's time, it was possessed of under Heathen Princes.] The Summe is, He challengeth for the Prince only a double coactive Power with his temporal Sword, which is either executed by himself, or committed to the Church Governors, one for constraining, of the Laity to the obedience of the Church, the other of the inferior Clergy to the obedience of their Superiors in all Spiritual matters.

§. 18 The same saith Dr. Fern ( Answer to Champny, 9. c. p. 284.) ‘It is a mistake, that the Prince, by his supreme Power in Spi­ritual and Ecclesiastical things, is made supreme Judge of Faith, and Decider of all Controversies thereunto belonging, and may ordain what he thinks fit in matters of Religion.’ Who also in his Discourse of Presbytery and Episcopacy, p. 19. Grants, ‘That no Secular Prince can justly prohibit, within his Dominions the exercise of Ordination and of Judicature, so far as the Keys left by Christ in his Church do extend; nor prohibiting, is to be obeyed, and Christ's Substitutes herein being denied the assistance of the Civil Power, are to pro­ceed without it. And ( Exam. Champny, p. 290.) saith, That the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church are the im­mediate, proper and ordinary Judges in defining and decla­ring what the Laws of Christ be, for Doctrine and Disci­pline. That they have a coercive Power in a spiritual re­straint of those, that obstinately gain-say.’ So Dr. Fern.

§. 19 Mason de Ministerio Anglicano, 3. l. 3. c. asketh the Que­stion. Quis enim nostrum unquam affirmavit Principes in causes Fidei & Religionis supremos esse Cognitores & Judices? De hac a Cardinale Bellarmino, & aliis Pontificiis, Ecclesiae An­glicanae [Page 33] illata injuria sic olim conquestus est Doctissimus Whitakerus, &c.

§. 20 Dr. Field, Of the Church, p, 667. ‘The State of the Chri­stian Church (the good things it enjoyeth, and the felicity it promiseth, being Spiritual) is such, that it may stand, tho not only forsaken, but greatly oppressed, by the great men of the world. And therefore it is by all resolved on: That the Church hath her Guides and Rulers distinct from them that bear the Sword, and that there is in the Church a Power of convocating these her Spiritual Pastors to consult of things concerning her welfare, tho none of the Princes of the world do favour her. And p. 81. Touching Errors of Faith, or Oberrations in the performance of God's worship and ser­vice (saith he); There is no question but that Bishops and Pastors of the Church, to whom it pertaineth to teach the Truth, are the ordinary and fittest Judges; and that ordi­narily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment there­of unto them. And below, We do not attribute to our Princes, with their Civil Estates, power newly to adjudge any thing to be Heresy without the concurrence of the State of their Clergy; but only to judge, in those matters of Faith that are resolved on, [ i. e. in former Councils.] according to former resolutions.’ And the same much what is said by Dr. Heylin, Reformation Justified, p. 80, 81. in affirming, ‘That if the Reformation be in such Points of Doctrine, as have not been before defined in such manner [ i. e. in a Ge­neral Council, or in a particular Council universally received] The King only with a few of his Bishops and learned Clergy, tho never so well studied in the Point disputed, can do no­thing in it.’ That belongs only to the whole Body of the Clergy in their Convocation, rightly called and constituted. [By these Expressions the Reformation, allowed to Christian Princes, seems only of Errors, first declared such, either by the Resolutions of former lawful Councils, or of a new law­ful Council of Clergy first had; which will easily be granted them. Provided that Councils be understood in their due Sub­ordinations, and according to their due votes; not the De­cree of some inferior Synod preferred by such Prince to the [Page 34]Decree of a Superior, nor the vote of a Minor part in a Synod (or of some Clergy out of it) before that of a Major part, But if they mean, the Princes taking the Guidance of some Council against a Superior, or of some part of the Clergy op­posed by a Major, this is only deluding the Reader, and in effect granting nothing.

§. 21 Again thus Dr. Field of the entring of any person into, or his Deposition from the Ecclesiastical Ministry, Ibid. p. 681. ‘It is resolved that none may ordain [I add or force the Cler­gy to ordain] any to serve in the work of Ministry, but the Spiritual Pastors and Guides of the Church. 2dly, That none may judicially degrade, or put any one lawfully admitted from his Degree and Order but they alone; [else had the Se­cular Magistrate no other Power, yet, if he may place, and displace Clergy at his pleasure, within his Dominions, he may hereby advance or depress what Sect of Religion, what Doctrines, what Discipline he pleaseth.]’ Next of the Power of the Prelates of the Church to call Councils independently on Princes, p. 668. ‘It is evident (saith he) that there is a Power in Bishops, Metropolitans, Primates and Patriarchs, to all Episcopal, Provincial, National, and Patriarchal Synods, and that neither so depending on, nor subject to, the Power of Princes, but that when they are Enemies to the Faith, they may exercise the same without their consent and privi­ty; and subject them, that refuse to obey their Summons, to such punishments as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt, or wilful negligence.’ To which may be added that of Bishop Bilson, Government of Christ's Church, 16. c. ‘When the Magistrate doth not regard, but rather afflict the Church, as in times of Infidelity and He­resy, who shall then assemble the Pastors of any Province to determine matters of doubt or danger?’ [To which Que­stion he Answers] The Metropolitan. [ When they are Ene­mies to the Faith (saith Dr. Field) I understand him, either when Enemies to the Christian Faith, as Heathen Princes; or if Christian, to the Catholick Faith, as Heretical Princes; for the Church hath as well need of using these her Privileges against Heretical Princes, as Heathen: otherwise the later may do her as much mischief as the former.

[Page 35] Next; what is said here of calling Councils without such Princes consent, I apply to the exercise of all those particu­lars, which are allowed to be the Churches Rights, and to have been exercised by her under Heathen Princes, as in this Council assembled the making Decrees in points of Doctrine controverted, and Canons for her Government; The publish­ing and requiring obedience thereto from all her Subjects, in whatever Princes Dominions, and punishing with the Church Censures the Refractory.]

§. 22 And with these Church-Privileges and Practices not only as to Heathen, but Heretical Princes, Bishop Andrews, Tort. Tort. p. 377. also seems well content. Who (in answer to Bellarmin, saying the Authority alledged out of the New Testament to be given to Princes, was to the Heathen, who yet had no Primacy in Ecclesiasticals, and therefore these places served nothing for proving such a Primacy) grants neither Infidel Princes, nor yet Christian, if Heretical, to have an Ecclesiastical Primacy over God's Church. Primatum ad Reges infideles pertinere non probant [these Texts]: Non sanc magis ad hos in novo, quam ad Ahasuerum, vel Nabuchodonosor, in veteri — Interim sit vel Infidelis, sit vel Haereticus, oretur pro co &c. And, Non id agitur, ut Ecclesiae Persecutores, Ti­berii, Caii, Ecclesiae Gubernatores habeantur. Tum demum vero Ecclesiae Gubernacula capessant, cum conversi ad fidem fu­erint [ fidem, i. e. Christianam; if Heathen: Catholicam, if Hereticks.] After him Mason, De Ministerio Anglicano, 3. l. 5. c. In case not only of Infidelity but of Heresy, or yet, if I mistake him not, in any other eminent Defect of Sanctity, denies to Princes at least the Exercise (whatever remote Power he placeth in them) of some branches of their Primacy Regibus (saith he) qui vel non sunt Christiani; vel si Christiani, non tamen orthodoxi; vel si orthodoxi, non tamen Sancti; Pri­matus competit quidem sed secundum quid; id est quoad autho­ritatem, non quoad rectum & plenum usum authoritatis; quoad officium, non quoad illustrem executionem officii [None such therefore may execute any Ecclesiastical Primateship, so as by vertue of it, to do any thing against the Acts of the Clergy, in Spirituals; unless this Author seek some refuge in the Epi­thetes, rectus, plenus, and illustris.]

[Page 36] §. 23 After the former Passages of Bishop Andrews and Mason, See Dr. Hammond in his Answer to S. W. Schisme disarm'd, p. 203. who to the Drs words, ( Schisme, p. 125.) that the Canons of the Councils have mostly been set out, and re­ceived their Authority by the Emperors, replied. ‘That never was it heard, that an Emperor claimed a negative voice in making the Canon of a Council valid, which concerned mat­ters purely Spiritual. To which Dr. Hammond returns this, For the appendage &c I need not reply, having never pre­tended, nor seemed to pretend, what he chargeth on me, concerning the Emperors negative Voice in the Council; what I pretended I spake out in plain words: That the Ca­nons have been mostly set out, and received their Authority by the Emperors, and this receiving their Authority is (I suppose) in order to their powerful Reception in their Do­minions: and this he acknowledgeth, and so we are friends.’ [By Dr. Hammond's consent then, A negative Voice the Prince hath not to reverse, or contrary the Church Canons in Spiritual matters; only thus he may be said to give Au­thority to them, by causing a powerful reception of them in his Dominions. Powerful, i.e. by assisting the Church in the Execution of them with this coactive Power.]

And elsewhere, Answer to Schism disarmed, p. 164. he grants in the Controversy of Erecting Metropoles. ‘That if the Prince exerciseth this Power so, as to thwart known Canons and Customes of the Church; this certainly is an abuse: And afterwards saith, It is invalid, as doing wrong to another in those Priviledges he enjoys by the Canon.’

§. 24 Thus also Grotius, Rivet. Apol. discuss. p. 70. (well seen in the Imperial Rights) not long before his death Impera­torum & Regum aliquod esse officium etiam circa res Ecclesiae in confesso est. At non tale, quale in Saeculi negotiis, ad tutandos, non ad violandos Canones jus hoc comparaturs est. Nam cum Prin­cipes filii sunt Ecclesiae, non debent vi in matrem uti, omne cor­pus Sociale jus habet quaedam constituendi, quibus membra obli­genter; hoc jus etiam Ecclesiae competere apparet, Act. 15.28. Heb. 13.17. Where he quotes Facundus, saying of Martianus, Cognovit ille quibus in causis uteretur Principis potestate, & in [Page 37]quibus exhiberet obedientiam Christiani. And obedite Praepositis, saith he) etiam Regibus dictum.

§. 25 I will conclude with the Sentiments of our two last most Gracious Sovereigns, King James, and King Charles the First, in his Defence of the Right of Kings against Cardinal Perron, p. 427, 428. ‘It is granted (saith he) That if a King shall command any thing directly contrary to God's Word, and tending to the Subversion of the Church, that Clericks in this case ought not only to dispense with Subjects for their Obedience, but also expresly to forbid their obedience, for it is always better to obey God, than Man. Howbeit in all other matters, whereby the Glory and Majesty of God is not impeached, it is the duty of Clericks to ply the people with wholsome Exhortations to constant obedience, &c.’ [There­fore the Clergy are the Judges for Christ's Flock, whatever Princes Subjects they be, when the Prince commands any such thing: which how it consists with another judgment of the Prince concerning the Doctrines of the Clergy, whether these command any thing against God's Word; a judgment not only discretive for himself, but prescriptive also to his Subjects, in prohibiting, that no such Doctrine be taught to them by the Clergy, I cannot divine; unless there can be two ultimate Law-givers, in the same matters, over the same per­sons; both whom delivering contrary things, they may be ob­liged to obey.] Again a little before. ‘I grant (saith he) That it is for Divinity Schools to Judge, How far the Power of the Keys doth stretch: I grant again, That Clericks both may, and ought also to display the Colours and Ensigns of their Censures against Princes; who violating their publick and solemn Oath [The King speaks of Christian Princes] Do raise and make open War against Jesus Christ [he means in maintaining some Heresy, and opposing his Church]: I grant yet again, that in this case they need not admit Laicks [Doth he not here, also include Princes?] to be of their Council, nor allow them any scope or liberty of Judgment, yet all this doth not hinder Prince nor People, from taking care of the preservation of their own Rights and Estates [That the Clergy pass nothing prejudicial to these Rights, [Page 38]for which there is all good reason.’ Again; ‘The Emperors (saith he) in making use of their Authority in Councils took not upon them to be infallible Judges of Doctrine, but only that they might see and judge, whether Bishops did propound nothing in their Convocations and Consultations, but most of all in their Determinations, to undermine the Emperors Authority, to disturb the tranquility of the Common-wealth [ i. e. in their medling in civil affairs] and to cross the De­terminations of precedent Councils.’ Thus King James.

§. 26 King Charles in his last Paper in the Isle of Wight, p. 3. Speaking of the several Branches of Episcopal Authority pra­ctised under Heathen Princes. ‘Tho the Bishops (saith he) in the times of Pagan Princes had no outward coercive Power over mens Persons or Estates [as also no more have they now, except from, and during, the Princes pleasure] yet in as much as every Christian man, when he became a Member of the Church, did ipso facto, and by that his own voluntary Act, put himself under their Government [So Christian men do still, Princes and all They [then] exercised a very large Power of Jurisdiction in Spiritualibus; In making Ecclesi­astical Canons, receiving Accusations, conventing the ac­cused, examining Witnesses, judging of Crimes [against the Evangelical Law] excluding such men as they found guilty of scandalous offences, from the Lord's Supper, enjoining Penances upon them, casting them out of the Church, re­ceiving them again upon their Repentance, &c.’ [I subsume, the same making of Ecclesiastical Laws and Canons, the same Examinations, Excommunications, and casting out of the Church, &c. are, and must be, allowed still, in Christian States also being things, which (as Bishop Carleton) Princes can neither give to, nor take from, the Church. And therefore they must also be allowed all those means, absolutely without which no such things can be done. As convening, keeping intelli­gence one with another, Promulgation of their Acts and De­crees, &c. And when the Christian Prince or State becomes to them such, as the Heathen were, in his with-holding or prohibiting these necessary things, then may they resume that behaviour, as was practised formerly, in Heathenisme, [Page 39] i. e. do these things without the States leave, or against its Prohibitions.]

§. 27 After this copious Account given you of learned and ju­dicious Protestants, touching so weighty a matter, let us now look back upon them, and see in what Posture things are left.

The Ecclesiastical Supremacy, that is commonly attributed to the Civil Power, seems to consist chiefly in all, or in some one of these three.

1. His strengthning and promoting the Acts of the Church and its Governors, with the assistance of the Secular Sword: and his making their laws, the Laws also of the State. One Branch of which power consequently is, The opposing and suppressing by the hand of Civil Justice, any such Ecclsiasti­cal Acts of Inferior and Uncanonical, and illegal Persons or Synods, as go against the Superior, and legal, (the Church being always the Judge in this matter, what Acts are against, and disowned by her) which is indeed the Princes not op­posing, but defending the Church.

§. 28 2. Or 2dly, His opposing and abrogating some of the Churches Canons and Laws of Government, in purely Spiri­tual and Ecclesiastical Affairs (for in Civil, all Princes, Hea­then also and Heretical may rescind any such Ecclesiastical Acts, as do any prejudice to the temporal Power, which God hath committed immediately into their hands) as pretended contrary to the Law of Christ, or to Christian liberty, &c.

3. Or 3dly, His declaring and reforming, against their De­crees in matters of Faith and Manners as some way contrary to God's Truth, and the Doctrine of the Scriptures.

§. 29 For the first of these, It is an Ecclesiastical Supremacy, or a Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters, which the Church hath never denied to belong to Secular Princes, but as ob­liged to them for it, and many Acts thereof may be, and some­times have been, performed even by Princes Heathen, or He­retical. Many Instances thereof are collected by Mason, De Ministerio Anglicano, p. 313. in Nabuchadonosor, Cyrus, Darius, under the Old Testament Tiberius, Adrian, Antoninus Pius, &c. [Page 40]And afterward of several of the Gothick Kings under the New.

For the other two, These Protestant Authors forecited grant, That so often as any Prince falls into Heresy, or in general opposeth the Christian Faith, the exercise of such Supremacy concerning matters of Faith, and Church Govern­ment returns to the Church alone, as it was in the Church alone, before Constantine. Again the judgment of Heresy (and consequently when Princes are Heretical, and so fallen from the exercise of any such Supremacy) is by several of the former quotations, See before, §. 21, 22. &c. granted to belong to the Church. But suppose the Christian Prince to be also Catholick, yet the limitations of several of the fore­cited Authors seem hardly to allow him any such Branches of Supremacy. For touching Errors of Faith, or Aberra­tions in the performance of God's worship and service, Dr. Field, before §. 20. saith, That ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment thereof to the Bishops and Pastors of the Church, and in these things to judge accord­ing to their former resolutions; or in any new matter, where­of no former Definition hath been made, the Prince (saith Dr. Heylin, before §. 20.) is to follow the new Resolutions that shall be made not of some few, tho never so learned, but of the whole body of his Clergy, and by consequence to fol­low also, not that, but the Resolution of a higher Body of Clergy, if this oppose that of his Clergy; the one being ne­cessarily subordinate to, and conclusive by, the other for pre­servation of the Unity and Peace of the Catholick Church. So Bishop Bramhal grants; That the Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons [ i. e. such, as re­lated only to Ecclesiastical not Civil, matters] both for the composing and executing of them. Only to make these Canons Laws [ i. e. accompanied with a politick and coactive Power] the Prince's Confirmation was required. And Mr. Thorndike saith before, §. 15. That should the Prince forbid it, yet the Church still ought to use that Ecclesiastical Power therein, that shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church [of which necessity also they, not the Prince, are by our Lord constituted the Judges.] The like saith Dr. Taylor of the Subordination of inferior Clergy to their Superiors, and Bi­shop [Page 41]Bishop Carleton before, §. 14. of the Ordinations of the Clergy, and Institution and Collation of Benefices, and Spiritual Cures; that they are proper Laws and Rights of the Church, not to be changed or taken away by Princes.

§. 30 It seems too late therefore, now, or in Henry the Eighth's days, to project a Repeal of any of those forementioned anci­ent Ecclesiastical Customes and Canons, which we find made or practiced by the Church under the Heathen Emperors, even against their frequent Edicts (yet which could not then have been lawfully so used, if any of these had encorached on Civil Rights; in any of which Civil Rights the Heathen Prince might claim as much lawful Power as the Christian can.) And also, which we find still continued by the Church under Christian Emperors, without asking their leave to Decree such things, or substituting their Decrees to their Authority, or depending on their consent only with humbly desiring their assistance, yet so as without it, resolved to proceed in the Execution thereof, as under Heathen; of which we have many Experiments under the Christian Emperors, when these Arian; yet which things the Church could not lawfully have done, were any of these entrenching upon the Princes Right, now at least when Christian. For Example, the 6th Canon of Nice; and 5th Canon of Constantinopolitan Council; and 3d, 4th. 7th. 17th. Canon of Concil. Sardic. concerning the Sub­ordinations and Appeals of Clergy, would have been an usur­pation of an unjust Authority, if the Subordination of Epis­copal Sees, and Erecting of Patriarchs had belonged to the Prince. When also we find them excluding Princes, tho Christian and Catholick, either from the judging in matters of Faith, and from prohibiting here that any such Spiritual Food (to use Bishop Andrews Expression, Resp. ad Apol. p. 332.) should be set before their Subjects, of which themselves first did not like the tast [which surely is judging of the good or evil of such food; or judging in meerly Ecclesiastical causes, in any way of opposition, or review of the Churches Decrees, I mean the most supreme that may be had in it.]

[Page 42] §. 31 For these review the Canons mentioned but now, and see that much noted Expostulation of St. Ambrose, 2. l. Epist. 13. ad Valentin. with the Emperor Valentinian, presuming to exa­mine Church Controversies, and calling them before his Tri­bunal. Quando audisti, Clementissime Imperator, in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicasse? Not, Quando audisti imberbem nec­dum baptizatum ex matris arbitrio pendentem, as Bishop An­drews, Resp. ad Apol. c. 1. p. 29. and others explain it; but, Quando auaisti Laicum, [applicable to any Secular Prince] de Episcopo judicasse? or, if Bishop Andrews will, dedisse idoneos cognitores, i. e. if they such, as Valentinian shall choose for idoneos; if these chosen be not Bishops, or Bishops of Valen­tinian's appointment, and not his Canonical Superiors; but then, these Canonical Superiors are given for the Bishops Judges, not by Vulentinian, but by the Church. But else, who cannot see clearly, that, dare idoneos cognitores, i. e. such as the Emperor thinks fit, which Bishop Andrews pleads for, as the Emperors right; and ipse Imperator judicare which St. Ambrose, denies, comes all to one? The same Father goes on. Quis est qui abnuat in causa fidei, in causa in-quam fidei, Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis, non Impera­tores de Episcopis judicare? Pater tuus, vir, Deo favente, ma­turioris aevi, dicebat; Non est meum judicare inter Episcopos, &c. And thus St. Athanasius, Ep. and Solitar. vitam agent. Expostu­lates with Constantius, interposing, as to the Churches Defi­nitions about Arianisme, and her Canons, about judging and censuring of Bishops, opposing such Bishops as he took for Enemies of the Divine Truth, and countenancing those infe­rior Ecclesiastical Synods which he fancied to be in the right, against the Superior and against the Canons. Quando a condito aevo auditum est, quod judicium Ecclesiae authoritatem suam ab Imperatore accepit? aut quando unquam hoc [a small number of Bishops joined with Constantius] pro judicio agnitum est? Plu­rimae ante-hac Synodi fuere, multa judicia Ecclesiae habita sunt. Sed neque Patres [...]istiusmodi res Principi persuadere conati sunt, nec Princeps se in rebus Ecclesiasticis curicsum praehuit. And see his complaints following; That he did, abrogare Canones, in decernendo Principem facere Episcoporum, & praesidere judiciis [Page 43]Ecclesiasticis, which he calls there Abominatio Desolationis. And the Reverend Hosius President in the Council of Nice, writes to this Prince on the same manner, Ibid. p. 456. Re­formida diem Judicit; ne te misceas Ecclesiasticis, neque nobis in hoc genere praecipe, sed potius ea a nobis disce. Tibi Deus impe­rium commisit; nobis quae sunt Ecclesiae concredidit, neque igitur fas est nobis in terris imperium tenere, neque tu thymiamatum & sacrorum potestatem habes, Imperator. Nefas est enim [as. Theodosius, see Conc. Ephesin. writ to the 3d General Council when he sent Candidianus thither for the Preservation of Peace and Order; but not, ut cum quaestionibus & controversiis, quae circa fidei dogmata incidunt quicquam commune haberet] qui Sanctissimorum Episcoporum Catalogo ascriptus non est, illum Ec­clesiastieis negotiis & consultationibus sese immiscere.

§. 32 Where note, that the Contest of these Bishops with these Emperors, is for their judging these Ecclesiastical matters where they had no power to judge; not for judging them, when having a lawful power, not rightly; for, this later these Princes would easily have denyed, (as all secular Princes that oppose the Church do) but could not so the former. And who doth not see, which is safer, to trust the Bishop, or Princes, with the last Cognizance of Divine things? And how much it concerns Christianity, that Princes be not made (as Bishop Andrews would have them Resp. ad Bell. Apol. p. 332) the Discussers of the Clergy's Definitions, whether contra legem Christi and the last Tasters of the Food pre­pared by the Pastors for Christ's Sheep; that, as this appears to them sweet or bitter, good or bad, so they may allow, or forbid, it to be ministred to their Subjects. Constantius was the first of the Christian Emperors that assumed this pregusta­tion, and that he took for sweet and good, proved very Poison to his Subjects, and at last ended in Mahometanisme. Mean-while no doubt but Princes may assist all the Churches Consults with their secular power, may call them, preside in them, for keeping of Order, restraining the Tumultuous and Re­fractory, and seeing that particulars perform what the whole declares to be their duty, as the only Supreme's there and else­where, of all coactive Power. This Right none can deny them.

[Page 44] Hitherto from §. 14. I have collected and considered the Protestant Concessions in Confirmation of the Church's Rights in her Ecclesiastical judgments, and other proceedings in pure Spirituals, which are declared to be independent on, and un­repeable by, the secular power; and I have given you grea­ter store of them than at first I intended.

§. 33 Now by these their Concessions, one would think the door were shut fast enough against any pretended Reformation at any time entring into the Church by the secular Authority opposed to the Ecclesiastical. Yet seeing that after this se­veral pretentions are made, and that not only by others but the same Authors (as it were unhappily distracted and divided between two powerful Leaders, Interest and Truth) to bring in Alterations in Religion against the standing Church Au­thority, chiefly by this way, namely a Superintendency or Supremacy therein of the secular power either proceeding against all, or at most joined with some inferior against the superior Clergy, or some lesser against a much major, part (the judgment of which superior's and major part do cano­nically conclude the whole); I think it necessary, in this, a matter of so great consequence, to gather all those Pleas and Defences of any weight, which I have met with in these Writers, whereon they build the lawfulness of their Refor­mation by the secular Arm, and to shew the invalidity of them.

§. 34 To this purpose then, I find them to alledge on the other side as if they had forgot all they had already conceded: See Dr. Fern, Answer to Champny, p. 300. ‘That the secular Sove­reign Power is to be satisfied [or as it is there §. 21. to have it, by Demonstration of Truth, evidenced to him] that what is propounded as Faith and Worship is according to the Law of Christ, before he use or apply his Authority to the publick establishment of it. Ibid. p. 294. And this in res­pect of his duty to God, whose Laws and Worship he is bound to establish by his own Laws within his Dominions, and is accountable for it, if he do it amiss.’ Thus Dr. Fern. Well, But may the Clergy at least publish that Faith and Worship which they judge to be according to the Law of Christ in his [Page 45]Dominions without him? Or may not the Prince also estab­lish something, as the Law of Christ, when it is, as he con­ceives, evidenced to him to be so by some other, without or against the Clergy; or only with some minor or inferior part of them, when opposed by the superior and major, i. e. by the Canonical Ecclesiastical Judge? The first of these is de­nied by him, the later affirmed. ‘For (saith he) Ibid. p. 308. General Councils being the greatest and highest means of direction which Kings can have in matters of Religion; but still with the limitation, quatenus docent legem Christi [of which I suppose the Prince must judge] it being possible that the major part should be swayed by Factions or world­ly Interest; Therefore Kings and Emperors (saith he) may have cause given them, upon Evidence of things unduly carried, to use their supreme power for forbidding of their Decrees. And Ibid. 2. c. p. 73. The Sovereign Prince is not bound in the way of Prudence always to receive his di­rections from a vote in Synod; especially when there is just cause of fear, that the most of them, that should meet, are ap­parently obnoxious to factious Interests. And ( p. 72.) If the Prince by the law of God stands bound to establish within his own Dominions whatsoever is evidenced to him by faith­ful Bishops, and Learned Men of the Church, to be the Law of Christ, shall he not perform his known duty till the Vote of a major part of a Synod give him leave to do it? Where also, p. 295. he approves the Concession of the Clergy under King Henry the Eighth. In binding themselves by Promise in Convocation in verbo Sacerdotis, not to exact, or promulge, or execute any new Canons or Constitutions without the King's assent.’ Here you see the Clergy's power so tied up, that they can publish no Christian Doctrine to the People, that is to Christ's Flock, which they do not first evidence to the Prince, and have for such publication his consent: but on the other side whatever is any way evidenced to the Prince he may publish without, and against their consent; and yet they, not he, are made by these men the ordinary Judges in Spiritual matters.

[Page 46] §. 35 Now here suppose the Prince receives the Directions of some Clergy men in any thing he doth; yet since the Clergy is a subordinate and well regulated Government, and these his Spiritual Directors oppose the main Body, he is not here directed by that Clergy, that ought to be his Judge, but those that are against it. Yet still some reason were there in this, if the Prince could always be certain in his Evidence, so as not to mistake, i. e. to think something evidenced to him when indeed it is not; and again to think other things not sufficiently evidenced, when they are; so there were less ha­zard in leaving Church matters thus to his disposal. But, since things are much otherwise; and evidencing Truths to any one, by reason of different Understandings, Education, Passions, and Interest is a thing very casual; so that what is easily evidenceable to another, may happen not to be so to the Sovereign Power, when not patient enough to be informed, when misled and prepossessed by a Faction; when not so ca­pable, as some others by defect of nature, or learning, and facile to be perswaded by the last Speaker, &c. to what an uncer­tain, and mutable Condition are Church Affairs reduced, when the Function of the Clergy depends on such Evidences made to the Prince?

2. §. 36 Next they urge, That (in regard that the Clergy may many ways fail, and miscarry in delivering Christ's Laws, and the Truth of the Gospel); ‘If in matters already deter­mined by our Lord and his Apostles, or Laws given to the Church, by injury of time the Practice become contrary to the Law, the Sovereign Power (being bound to protect Chri­stianity) is bound to employ it self in giving strength, first to that which is ordained by our Lord and his Apostles.’ By consequence, if those with whom the Power of the Church is trusted [ i.e. that Body of the Clergy, whose Acts conclude the whole; else if only some other Clergy miscarry, this Body serves the Prince for their correction] shall hinder the re­storing ‘of such Laws, the Sovereign Power may and ought, by way of penalty to such persons, to suppress their power, that so it may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the [Page 47]superior Ordinance of our Lord, and his Apostles.’ Thus Mr. Thorndike, Rights of the Church, p. 273.

§. 37 Now here, to omit that such suppositions and fears, that the Clergy, taken in the largest capacity, and supremest judg­ments to which the Prince is to repair, when lower are sus­pected, shall fail at any time in the delivering to Christians all necessary Truths, are groundless; of which see what hath been said in the first Discourse concerning the Guide in Contro­versies, §. 6. &c. And Second Discourse, §. 12. &c. what rea­sonable man is there, hearing this, that will not presently ask, Who shall judge, whether that be indeed a Law ordained by our Lord or his Apostles, which the Prince would intro­duce, or restore, and which the Succession of the Clergy op­poseth? Which Clergy surely will never confess such to be a Law of our Lord, but always will profess the contrary? Nay; will say, That the Succession of the Clergy shall keep, teach and maintain our Lord's Laws inviolably as to necessaries, to the end of the world. This Question he asketh not; he solv­eth not, as writing against the Presbyterians, who will not ask it him. But what can he say when asked it? Shall the Clergy judge? They deny it to be the Lord's Law, what the Prince, against their consent would restore. Shall the Prince judge? But this is most unreasonable, that the judgment of a Laick in such a Contest, shall be preferred before the whole Succession of the Clergy in Spiritual matters: and what mis­chief will come hereupon, if he judge amiss? And here let me set before him his own Rule. ‘A difference falling out [saith he, i. e. between the Secular Power and the Bishops so that to particular persons it cannot be cleer, who is in the right [and how can that be cleer, in such high mysteri­ous matters of Divinity to any humble person, the contrary to which is judged cleer by his Spiritual Guides?] it will be requisite for Christians, in a doubtful case at their utmost perils, to adhere to the Guides of the Church, against their lawful Sovereigns.’ Thus Mr. Thorndike.

§. 38 Dr. Field saith much-what the same, as He: ‘That tho or­dinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment of [Page 48]Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Affairs to the Bishops and Pastors; yet because they may fail [ i. e. the chiefest of them, else these may redress the failings of inferiors] either thro negligence, ignorance, or malice, Princes having charge over God's People, and being to see that they serve and wor­ship him aright, are to judge and condemn them [the foresaid Clergy] that fall into gross Errors contrary to the common sense of Christians; or into any other Heresies formerly con­demned [I conceive he meaneth, condemned by former Councils.] And tho there be no general failing [in the Clergy] yet if they see violent and partial courses taken, they may interpose themselves to stay them, and cause a due proceeding; or remove the matter from one sort of Judges to another [I suppose he meaneth either from the whole Clergy to Secular Judges, or from that part of the Clergy, which the Prince dislikes, to some others of the Clergy, whom he approves.]’

§. 39 Thus Dr. Field, who, (not to urge Bishop Andrews's Ob­servation against him. Ad extraordinariam Potestatem con­fugere non solet quis, nisi deplorata res est) here seems to fix the Prince as one, that cannot fail, thro negligence, igno­rance or malice: or at least cannot fail so soon thus, as the whole governing Body of the Clergy may. What? not fail in ig­norance sooner then they? That is somewhat strange. Again; as one, that hath a charge over God's people, and is to see that they worship God a right. As if the Clergy had not such charge more then he, or as if he could judge what is Right in God's Worship better then they. Again he represents this Body, or major part of the Clergy, as those that may fall into gross Errors, contrary to the common Sense of Christians, and into Heresies condemned; he meaneth by former Clergy. But why may not this former Clergy be supposed, by the Prince, to have erred sometimes contrary to the common Sense of Christians, as well as the present Clergy? Or if the judgment of the Clergy of former Ages is to be followed by the Prince, why not that of the present, that is of equal Autho­rity? But lastly imagine the Prince to fail, as he may thro negligence, ignorance, &c. may not an Ecclesiastical Power [Page 49]within his Dominions review his Acts, and reform his Errors too? But, how this, if they may enact, promulge, or execute no new Canons or Constitutions in spiritnal matters without his consent? Or if this be allowed them, how may these two, both of them made supreme, and ultimate Law-givers, at the same time in the same place, reform one another, and the people subjected to them, according to their different Judg­ments? What Confusion!

§. 40 See Bishop Andrews going the same way with the former, Resp. ad Bell. Apol. p. 332. Cum in Deuteronomio dicere jube­antur Sacerdotes, & docere juxta legem Dei, leget exemplar suum Rex, ut sciat an ex ea respondeant. Pascua petet, nec sibi Pastor erit, sed sibi tamen gustabit, &, si amarum pabulum & noxtum, gustabit, ut Christus acetum: quod, cum gustasset, no­luit bibere. And after him Mason, De Ministerio Anglicano, 3. l. 3. c. p. 272. Pastorum est, dubia legis explicare, Regum vero veritatem cognitam [sibi] promulgare; & subditis cujuf­cunque sint ordinis [ i. e. whether Clergy or Laity] imperare. Ibid. p, 273. Nec tamen splendidis hominum titulis aut suffragi­orum numero, aut locorum privilegiis tantum deferet, quantum veritati [ i. e. that which he-conceives to be Truth]: paucis secundum Scripturas docentibus [ i. e. when he conceives to teach so] potius credet, quam 400 pseudo prophetis pro [...]cultu Baalis contendentibus. And Ibid. 4. c. p. 289. Imperator etiam in Sacro-sanctis fidei Mysteriis, proveritate [i. e. quae sibi vide­tur] jubere potest, & pro doctrina Apostolica, Concilii Decreto in contrarium non obstante. And p. 297. Neque ad primatum Re­gium quicquam interest, sive praelucentes Synodorum sententias habeat Rex, sive non habeat. Sive enim veritatem caelestem ipsi dignoscant, sive a Praelatis suis edocti ediscant, dummodo pro veri­tate [i, e. quae sibi videtur] jubeant, & leges condant, vere se exhibent Supremos Gubernatores.

§. 411 Here therefore the King judgeth when, or which of the Clergy judgeth aright; and which otherwise; and is at his liberty to follow therein any number of them. And neither is he thus a Judge for himself only judicio diseretivo, as they call it; but for others also, judicio decisivo (which the Clergy are [Page 50]not); so far as to promulgate and command all his Subjects, and amongst them the Clergy, to obey that which he, upon consulting the Clergy, and hearing their reasons, judgeth to be according to God's word; and this without the consent of the Clergy at all, or at least, of the major part of them. But they of the Clergy may not promulgate any Canons or Consti­tutions of theirs, or what they judge according to Gods word, in such Controversy, without the King's consent. And yet; Quis enim nostrum (said he before) unquam affirmavit Principes in causis Fidei & Religionis supremos esse Cognitores & Judices?

§. 42 Now, this Primacy of Christian Princes in the vindicating and restoring God's Truth without, or also against, the Clergy, is by them maintained and supported, 1 principally α. α By the Reformations in Religion, which they say were made by the Godly Kings of Judah.

(β. β To which some join Moses's correcting Aaron's Idola­try in making the Molten Calf; γ. γ and St. Paul's Appeal from the Jew's Ecclesiastical Court to Caesar.) 2. δ. δ By the Acts of some pious Emperors cassating the Decrees of some Ecclesi­astical Synods; as particularly Theodosius the Decrees of the second Ephesine Council. 3. ε. ε By many precedents of later Christian Princes, and amongst them the Kings of England before Henry the Eighth, vindicating such Rights of Princes against the Pope. But indeed none of these, well examined, will bear the weight they charge on them.

To α. The first Instance (which is the main: To α. Habuerunt Reges, §. 43 saith Bishop Andrews, Tort. Tort. p. 379. in vetere Testamento primatum suum atque inde Nervi, & lacerti causae nostrae; in novo autem deteriore jure non sunt.) It is willingly granted: 1. That Princes may reform, and that as Supremes in the exercise of their Civil Power, in matters of Faith and Religion. 2. May reform; as Bishop Andrews would have it, Ibid. p. 365. Citra Declarationem Ecclesiae, without any De­claration of the Church at that time, in Doctrines of the Church known and undisputed, and formerly declared, as those things, the Kings of Judah reformed in, were; and justly are Princes blamed for any their neglect in this, the duty of their Place, [Page 51]and wherein their Secular Power is much more effective of a thorow Reformation than the Priest's. 3. May reform the Clergy too; such, as sound in the Faith neglect their Duty: or also are fallen from that Faith which is taught by that Church, that is the Canonical Judge of such Controversies: and Princes in punishing such Clergy, are to be accounted Assistants to the Church. 4. May reform this Clergy, tho these a greater number, than those professing the Catholick Faith; because the legislative Church-power remains not in these separated, and excluded, tho the more; but only in the whole, or in the major part of the Catholick party, easily di­scernable from the Apostates, as were those deserting Moses's Laws, and changing the former Divine Service, and but a few at the first. Only it is contended, that never may Princes so reform against that Body of the Clergy, which is the Canonical Judge of Controversies in matters of Faith, nor can it beproved, that the Godly Kings of Judah did so; either that they reformed all the Priests; or the High-Priest, who was always their Guide in matters of Religion; or reformed the People against them, or reformed the People, at least without them.

§. 44 The chief Reformations were made by David, Jehosophat, Hezekiah, and Josiah. And in all these we find an Orthodox Clergy Co-adjutors and Con-reformers, and the Prince recti­fying nothing in them, but with them: and if the King's Acti­ons appear in the Book of Kings, or Chronicles more set forth, than their's; it is because it is an History of the Acts of the Kings, not of the Priests. When after the flourishing times of the Church under David and Solomon in Jeroboam's Reign, Israel fell away, yet the Priests and Levites revolted not with the People; but leaving their Cities and Possessions, went over to Judah See 2. Chron. 11.13, 14. — 13.9. — 15.9. and new Priests were made by Jeroboam for his new Worship. Afterward we find these Priests and Levites assisting Jehosa­phat in his Reformation, 2. Chron. 17.7, 8. and 19.8, 9, 10. In the times of Ahaz's Apostacy these Aaronical Priests were excluded; the Doors of the house of our Lord shut up, 2. Chron. 28.24. and new Priests not descended from Aaron, called Chemarim, consecrated with many Sacrifices, and ordained [Page 52]for the new idolatrous Worship: of whom see 2. King 23.5. Zeph. 1.4. Hos. 10.5. Ezech. 44.8. To whom I will not deny, but that some also of Aaron's race joined themselves. But after this we find Hezekiah's Reformation, in the very beginning of his Reign assisted with the Orthodox Clergy. 2. Chron. 29.11, 12. &c. He opened the doors of the Lord, (saith the Text, 2. Chron. 22.3, 4 &c.) and brought in the Priests and the Levites; viz. whom Ahaz had excluded not long before. Afterwards these Priests of the Lord being excluded again from officiating in a greater persecution of Manasses. Yet by him at last repenting we find them also restored, and officiating in the Temple before Josiah's time, 2. Chron. 33.16. And in the next Chapter, 2. Chron. 34. Josiah perfected the Reforma­tion, which his Grand-father had begun, by their Assistance; and particularly by that of the High-Priest Hilkiah; who also found in the Temple, the Book of the Law, this in those times, (at least entire) being very rare, and communicated it to the pious Prince, who had neither seen it, nor heard it read before this Eighteenth Year of his Reign, and therefore must formerly have learnt God's Service, and the true Religion, to which he now so zealously reformed the People, not from the Scriptures, but from the Priests. Neither were any of those Priests and Levites, that assisted King Josiah, such, as had before Apostatiz'd under Manasses, in that Josiah would permit none of those Levitical Priests who had formerly of­fered Sacrifices in the High-Places, tho these to the God of Israel, afterward to officiate at the Lord's Altar in Jerusalem; but only indulged them their Diet with the rest of the Priests: See 2. King. 23.7.9. This Good King Josiah was the last Re­former. And if the Clergy after this fell away in a much grea­ter number, so did the Princes too much more irrecoverably. But in those times also when it is said, 2. Chron. 36.14. That all [ i.e. very many, as it is not unusual in Scripture,] of the chief of the Priests, and of the People transgressed very much after all the abominations of the Heathen, yet a remnant still there was, that remained Catholick, whom the rest now being Extra Ec­clesiam King and People were obliged to obey, in Spiritual matters; a remnant, I say, Catholick as appears out of Ezekiel, who began his Prophecy some few years before the Captivity, [Page 53]where Ch. 44.15. The Lord having condemned the lapsed Priests or Levites to lower service, saith of these. But the Priests the Levites the Sons of Zadoc [either of Zadoc men­tioned 1. King. 2.35. &c. And 1. Chron. 6.8. or of Sadoc mentioned 1. Chron. 6.12. Grand-father to Hilkiah the High Priest in Josiah's time] that kept the charge of my Sanctuary, when the Children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, &c. Some Priests therefore there were thro all those evil times whom God accepted and owned; and who stood firm as to the Faith; tho many of these guilty of great neglect of their Duty, of Covetousness, and several other Vices; and particularly of undertaking to foretel Good things to a Wicked people, instead of exhorting them to Repentance; and of persecuting the true Prophets, who foretold things bad; which rendred them the frequent subject of the Prophet's complaints, See Jer. 23. &c.

§. 45 This that all the Princes Reformations in the State of Ju­dah that are instanced-in, were done with the Priest's consent and assistance, none against them. And if instead of proving that these Kings did reform against the Clergy, it be urged; that at least they might have done it, because no way subject­ed in matters of Religion to the judgment of the Priest; many Texts may be produced, evincing the contrary; as particular­ly that Deut. 17.8, 9. &c. where the Judge named, beside the Priest, may either respect those extraordinarily, sent by God and sanctified in a special manner with his Spirit, as Sa­muel, and some others; or also in general the supreme Civil Power joined for the Execution with the Ecclesiastical; or as for the Decision, the one judging for the Civil and Regal, the other for God's, Laws; but however it be, the Judge in such a Conjunction is no way authoriz'd to give Sentence in a matter of God's Law without or against the judgment of the Priest. Which appears more clearly, if this Text in Deut. be compared with those other relating to it, 2. Chron. 19.8, 9, 10. Ezek. 44.24. Haggai, 2.11. Mal. 2.7, 8. Hos. 4.4. or if these Texts will not evince such an Ecclesiastical Supre­macy belonging to the Priest in the Old Testament, at least other Texts do in the new. From which Texts the former [Page 54]Protestant Concessions grant such a Power, as to the judging of Controversies of Faith and of Heresy, and that without the Civil Power's having herein a Negative Voice. This to the Kings of Judah.

To β. That urged concerning Aaron; To β. I answer, That this Sin of his was before his being enstalled High-Priest, §. 46 and at such time as Moses was appointed by God the supreme Judge in Ecclesiastical Affairs. Yet that the Tribe of Levi, follow­ing Moses, remained then not only constant, but valiant and zealous Professors of the true Religion, for which God after­ward chose this Tribe for the sacred Ministery, See Exod. 32, 27. Deut. 33.8, 9. That the High-Priest should be suspected, or accused of Idolatry, the judgment of this (as also of Here­sy) and the expelling of him, found guilty, out of the Church by Excommunication belongs to the Clergy united in their supreme Council, and the punishing him by other temporal Censures to the Prince.

To γ. St. Panl's Act; To γ. I answer that the supreme Court for deciding Ecclesiastical Controversies in St. Paul's time, §. 47 was that newly established by our Lord; the Council of the Apo­stles, not the Sanedrim of the Jews. That St. Paul's Appeal to Caesar was in no such Ecclesiastical Cause, but in an accusation of raising Sedition, of which he was charged, as well, as of being a Sectary, Act. 24.5.12.18. wherein, brought hefore Festus's Tribunal, he pleaded Not-guilty; and upon his Adver­saries seeking to kill him, before judgment given, appealed to Caesar's, i.e. from one Civil Tribunal to another higher.

To. δ. The Acts of the Emperors, To δ. and that especially of Thedosius; §. 48 I answer, That these being mentioned before for Branches of the Royal Primacy in Ecclesiasticals, as to con­firm those Acts in Spiritual matters, which the Church own­eth as legal and canonical, so to suppress and annul, the il­legal and uncanonical Acts of any Ecclesiasticks contrary to those of the Church (in both which the temporal Powers e­qually assist the Church) those Acting of the Emperors in Church matters that are here urged, are only in these two [Page 55]kinds; and so are allowed, and such in particular was that Act of Theodosius, in dis-avowing the Decree of the second Ephe­sine Council: which Decree, being opposed by the Bishop of Rome's Legates in the Council, and by himself, and all the Western Churches, and divers of the Eastern Bishops out of it; and several of those, who voted for it in the Council, be­ing with threats forced thereto, as appears by their com­plaint made hereof in the following Council of Chalcedon, Con­til. Chalced. Act. 1. was illegal and not obliging: and upon this ground or motive, the Emperor's assistance requested by Leo, for the nulling of its Acts; as may be seen in the begin­ning of the Epistle he writ to him, wherein upon such reasons given he desires the Emperors favour, Epist. 43.

To ε. The Practice of later Christian Princes preceding the times of Henry the Eighth (much pressed by Bishop Brambal in Vindication of the Church of England, To ε. 5th and 7th Chapters) I answer; §. 49 that all oppositions whatever of Civil States to the Ecclesiastical Power are not denyed to be just or lawful; but only those which oppose his Decrees, Canons or Government, relating to matters purely Spiritual and Eccle­siastical; that the most of those, which the Bishop instanceth in, are not so (not about matters of Faith and Manners, or Church Discipline, or the Sub-ordinations of the Churches Judicatures, and Execution of her Laws and Censures, as to these) but Contests either about those things which the Church possessed, not by her own right, but Princes former Donations; or in matters apprehended by Princes some way hurtful or prejudicial to their Civil Rights and Liberties. As for Example, About the Patronage of Bishopricks, and In­vestiture of Bishops, several Revenues, and Pensions given to, or exacted by, the Church; and Exemption of Lands and Estates from Tribute; Exemption of the Clergy from Secular Courts in Civil, or also Criminal matters; Appeals made to, or Bulls brought from Rome, relating to matters, the Cogni­zance whereof belongs to the King's Court, and therefore these matters to be considered by the Prince, whether not such, before that his Subject may submit to them. Of which may be used the Bishops forecited §. 17. Observation on the [Page 56]37th Article of the Church of England. You see that all here is Political. But then granting that some other instances are such as offend against the Churches native Rights, as some Contests here in England did; for opposing which some holy Bishops here suffered much Persecution: yet the proving such Facts to have been done, even before the times of Henry the Eighth, proves not their lawfulness to be done; and next how far soever such Acts may be shewed to have passed in restrain­ing some claims of the Church, yet the Bishop confesseth that for Henry the Eighth's abolishing the usurped Jurisdiction (as he calls it) of the Bishop of Rome or Western Patriarch, he finds no Pattern in these former Acts of Christian Princes. His words are, Vindication of the Church of England, p. 184. ‘Lastly Henry the Eighth abolished the usurped Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his it] Dominions. The Em­perors did not so. Whether [saith he conjecturing at the reasons of that they thought it not fit [I add or lawful] to leave an old Patriarch; or because they did not sufficiently consider the right bounds of imperial power, especially be­ing seconded with the Authority of an Occidental Council [but no such Council would second them, or did Henry the Eighth in this business];’ or because they did not so clearly di­stinguish ‘between a beginning of Unity, and an universality of Jurisdiction [for if they had, they had wronged this Pa­triarch]; or because they had other remedies wherewith to help themselves, I cannot determine:’

By what is said it may appear, how improper the foresaid Instances are to prove, in Christian Princes, a Power to reform the supposed Errors of the Clergy in their Doctrines of Faith or Manners; the second thing they have urged.

§. 50 3. Again; They urge, ‘That it is not fit nor safe that the Clergy should be able by their Constitutions, and Synodical Acts to conclude both Prince and People in Spiritual matters, until the Stamp of Royal Authority be imprinted on them.’ Dr. Heylin, Reformation Justified, p. 86. Dr. Fern, Exam of Champ. p. 295. Where, were the Princes knowledge and assent required only on this account relating to the State; that so nothing be passed in these Synods prejudecial to his Civil [Page 57]Rights, it is willingly allowed: but if required on another ac­count, relating to Religion, that so he may prohibit and sup­press so much of them, as is not evidenced to him to be juxta legem Christi, or as he apprehends, is also against it, (of which thing he is not the Judge, yet which hath been the Pretence of reforming Princes, medling with the most speculative points in Divinity) it seems not reasonable. And thus an Heretical Prince will strangle, as he pleaseth, within his Dominions the Catholick Verities.

§. 51 4. They urge the case of the Act of a National Clergy passing away their Spiritual Authority to a Sccular Prince, 4. and investing him, or whom he shall nominate and elect, with that Power which formerly they enjoyed in their own capa­city. After which, they say, the Princes Act, or their's he no­minates, have virtually the power of the Clergy, or their Synod, and do oblige as much as if they in terminis had agreed upon it. To give you it in Dr. Heylin's words, Reform. Justi­fied, p. 89. ‘The Kings of England (saith he) had a further Right as to this particular, which is a Power conferred upon them by the Clergy (whether by way of Recognition, or Concession, I regard not here); by which the Clergy did invest the King with a supreme Authority, not only of confirming their Synodical Acts, not to be put in Execution without his consent, but in effect to devolve on him all that Power which formerly they enjoyed in their own capacity;’ [amongst which Powers ( p. 85.) he nameth this; to reform such Er­rors and Corruptions as are expresly contrary to the word of God.] ‘And to this we have a parallel Case in the Roman Empire; in which the Supreme Majesty of the State was vested in the Senate, and People of Rome, till by the Law, which they call Lex Regis, they transferred all their Power on Caesar, and the following Emperors; which Law being past, the Edicts of the Emperors were as binding as the Sena­tus-Consulta had been before. The like may be affirmed of the Church of England. The Clergy had self Authority in all matters, which concerned Religion, and by their Canons and Determinations did bind all the Subjects, till by acknowledg­ing King Henry the Eighth for their supreme Head, and by [Page 58]the Act of Submission not long after follwing, they trans­ferred that Power upon the King and his Successors. After which time whatsoever the King or his Successors did in the Reformation, as it had virtually the Power of the Convoca­tion, so was it as good in Law as if the Clergy in their Con­vocation particularly, and in terminis, had agreed upon it.’ Thus Dr. Heylin. And upon this ground and title it was that the XLII Articles, since reduced to XXXIX, were first intro­duced into the Church of England, being composed by cer­tain Persons appointed by the Prince; and then, without any review, or Confirmation of the Synod, published as the Act thereof: as appears by Philpot's Plea, and arguing in the Synod 10. Mariae, when the Clergy questioned these Articles and subscribed that they were wrongfully entitled to the Synod, which had never passed them: See for this matter, Fox, Act, p. 1282. And Ib. p. 1704, Arch-bishop Cranmer's Tryal. And Fuller's Hist. Ecclesiast. 7. l. p. 420. And Dr. Fern, Exam. Champny. p. 74.

§. 52 To all which may be answered: That the Canons of the Church permit no such Translation of the Clergy's Authority to the Secular Power; neither yet is the supreme Power of com­posing or changing Articles of Faith and Religion, or making other Ecclesiastical Laws, as to any Nation, vested in the Na­tional Synod thereof; as appears at length from the Sub-ordi­nations of Clergy, both Persons and Synods in the Catholick Church, which in several States is only one, for preserving of the Churches Faith and Government for every in unity; of which see more Head 6. Thes. 1. &c. 2 Discourse con­cerning the Guide in Controversies, §. 24. &c. Consid. on Council of Trent, §. 9. &c. And so such National Synods cannot give away what they have not. Nor, were it so, have they any Power of Alienating this Authority, for which they are perso­nally set a part from the rest of the world by our Lord, with a successive solemn Ordination, and of which well or ill ma­naged, they themselves must give account to our Lord: No such Power of Alienation being contained in the original Grant thereof. But if, without such express Licence, they can give away some Part to the Laity (where also no necessity [Page 59]is pretended) then why not any part of their office; and so depute Laicks to ordain Ministers also and consecrate the holy Encharist? To which may be added: That no part of the Clergy Duty depends more on their personal Abilities, and long preparation by study then this we speak of; The composing of Articles and Canons, the reforming of Errors, &c. Least of all therefore seems this committable to the Prince, either that he himself should perform it, whose Regal imployments require a far different Education; or that he should delegate it to others; by which the Clergy authorizeth they know not whom, perhaps some persons heretical, (if such happen to be Favourites of the Prince) to establish in Re­ligion the Clergy knows not what (for this Concession is made by the English Clergy without any Reservation of a Revisal.)

§. 53 5. They urge (to give you it in Bishop Bramhal's words, Vindic. of the Church of England, 5. p. 257.) 'That since the Di­vision 'of Britain from the Empire [ i. e. since Brittain's be­ing governed by Princes of its own, who therefore in their Territories have the same Authority that the Roman Em­perors formerly had in the Empire, See Dr. Hammond, Schism p. 124.] ‘No Canons are, or ever were, of force with us fur­ther then they were received, and by their incorporation be­came Brittannick Laws. Which as they cannot, or ever could, be imposed upon the King and Kingdome by a forreign Patri­arch by constraint, so when they are found by experience pre­judicial to the publick Good, they may as freely by the same King and Kingdome be rejected.’ And so Dr. Hammond, Of Schism, p. 125. ‘The Canons of Councils have mostly been set out, and received their Authority by the Emperors.’

I answer; All this is true: 1. That the Church Canons are not of force, as to any Coactive Power to he used in the Execution of them by Clergy or Laity, before made the Em­peror's or other Princes Laws. For which take the same Bi­shop Bramhal's Exposition, when I believe he had better con­sidered it: Schism Guarded, p. 92. ‘We see the Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods, and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors, but that was by Authority [Page 60]meerly Spiritual. They had no Coactive Power to compel any man against his will. And p. 119. We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them, and for executing of them, but with this caution; That to make them Laws the Confirmation of the Prince was required; and to give the Bishop a Coactive Power to execute them, The Prince's Grant or Concession was needful.’ 2. That the Church Canons are not of force at all, when these Canons relate to any civil Right, without the secular Magistrate's precedent admission of them, of whose proper Cognizance such Rights are. But meanwhile all Ecclesiastical Canons, whether con­cerning the Faith or Government and Discipline of the Church, so far as they do not encroach on any such civil Rights (as I presume all those made by the Church when under Heathen Governors will be granted to be) are in force, in whatever Princes Dominions, so as to render all the dis­obedient liable to the Church's Censures, tho the Christian Prince never so much oppose and reject them. And this granted, more is not desired; for thus no Members of the Church at any time can be free from the strict observance of such Canons by any secular Authority or Patronage.

§. 54 6. They urge, That in any Princes Dominions the Clergy's liberty to exercise actually their Function, 6. and the applica­tion of the matter on which it worketh; viz. of the Subjects of such a Dominion, are held from the Crown; so that a Chri­stian Prince, by denying this, lawfully voids the other, as he thinks fit. ‘We draw (saith Bishop Bramhal, Vindic. p. 268.) or derive from the Crown, Liberty or Power to exercise actually and lawfully upon the Subjects of the Crown, that habitual Jurisdiction which we receive at our Ordination.’ And in his Reply to Chalced. p. 291. he makes Ecclesiastical Persons in their excommunicating and absolving the King's Substitutes ( i. e. as he expounds himself afterward) by the King's Application of the matter; namely, of his Subjects to receive their Absolution from such Ecclesiastical Persons.

I answer; This again, if meant, of the liberty of the Cler­gy's exercising their Functions with a Coactive Power or of [Page 61]some persons among that Clergy, which the Church owns as Catholick, being admitted to exercise their Function abso­lutely in such Dominions, and not others, is very true; but little to their Purpose that urge it. But if understood abso­lutely as to the liberty of any such Clergy at all, to exercise their Function at all in any Christian Prince's Dominions up­on his Subjects without his leave, in which sense only it be­steads them, is most false. Neither may a Christian Prince be thought to have any priviledge herein, which a Heathen hath not. And as such Priviledge is most pernicious to the propaga­tion of the Christian Religion, where the Prince is Heathen; So to the Conservation of the Catholick Religion, where the Christian Prince happens to be Heretical or Schismatical.

§. 55 7. They urge, For the abrogating Church Canons; That Ecclesiastical are only humane Institutions, 7. that Authority given by the men and abused, may be again suppressed by them. So Rivet, Grot. Discuss. Dialys. p. 173. in Answer to Grotius, Discussio Rivet Apol. p. 69. who alledged a Jus Ecclesiasticum for the Pope's Primacy to be conceded by Protestants. And, 'Tho Inferiors are not competent Judges of their Supe­riors; yet as to subordinate Superiors in matters already de­fined by the Church, the Sentence of the Judge is not ne­cessary, the Sentence of the Law, and Notoriety of the Fact are sufficient. So Bishop Bramhal, Vindic. of the Church of England, p. 253. from whence seems to be inferred the law­fulness for a Prince within his Dominions, or for a Church National, totally to abrogate the forementioned Canonical Sub-ordination of such Kingdome, or Church to the Patriar­chal Authority, when this abused.

§. 56 To which 1st it is willingly granted, That both Ecclesiastical Offices and Canons may be abrogated for abuses happening by them: only, that this may not be done by Inferiors, or by every Authority, but by the same Authority that made or set them up.

2. Next for Abuses, and the Notoriety of them; that no Pra­ctices may be stiled so, where neither Church-Definitions are found against them, much less where these found for them; [Page 62]nor where a major part of those subject to them acknowledge them as Abuses, but continue their obedience therein as their Duty. 3ly, For such things as are notorious Abuses, or most generally agreed on for such; and so Obedience withdrawn herein; yet none may therefore substract his obedience absolute­ly, from such an Authority for such other matters, where their Obedience is due; and due it is still, that was formerly so, till such Power reverse that Authority, and its Injunctions as set it up. But whilst Obedience in the one is denyed, in the other it ought still to be yielded. Therefore should the Patriarch make a breach upon the Civil Rights of Princes, or their Subjects, these may not justly hence invade his Ecclesiastical. And if the Priest (Patriarch or Bishop) would in some things act the Prince, therefore may not the Prince justly take upon him to act the Priest; or to alter any thing of that Spiritual Hierar­chy established by Christ or by the Church, much to the good, but nothing at all to the damage, of temporal States: If any thing happen to be unjustly demanded, it excuseth not from paying just debts. The Office must not be violated for the fault of the Person: And herein may the Example of other Nations be a good Pattern to ours; who having made resist­ance to their Patriarch in some Injunctions conceived by them not Canonical, yet continue still their Obedience in the rest; as appears in the late Contest of the State of Venice, and those Opposals both of France and Spain, and England before the times of Henry the Eighth, of which Bishop Bramhal, In Vindic. 3d. Book, 7th Chap. hath been a sufficiently diligent Collector; but at last found them all to come short of Henry the Eighth's Proceedings: See before, §. 49. Neither indeed need any Prince to fear any Ecclesiastical Tyranny so far, as to pluck up the Office by the roots, who holding the Tem­poral Sword still in his own hands, can therewith divide, and moderate it as he pleaseth.

§. 57 8. The endeavour to void the Pope's Patriarchal Autho­rity, and the Canonical Priviledges belonging to it, 8. by his claiming an Universal Headship by Succession to St. Peter, whereby they say that the Western Provinces do now become released from their Obedience due to him as Patriarch; and [Page 63]then that they never owed any Obedience to him as the Uni­versal Head: to which purpose thus Bishop Bramhal, Vindic. p. 250. ‘They [the Popes] quitted their pretended Patri­archal Right, when they assumed and usurped to themselves the name and thing of Universal Bishops, Spiritual Sove­reigns, and Sole Monarchs of the Church. To be a Patri­arch, and to be an Universal Bishop in that sense are incon­sistent, and imply a contradiction in adjecto; the one professeth humane, the other challengeth divine, Institution. The one hath a limited Jurisdiction over a certain Province, the other pretendeth to an unlimited Jurisdiction over the whole world.’ And so Reply to S. W. p. 69. ‘To claim a Power paramount, a Sovereign Monarchical Regality over the Church is implicitly, and in effect, to disclaim a Patriarchal.’ After the same manner argues Dr. Hammond concerning the Pope claiming a Jurisdiction over England as Patriarch upon the supposed Conversion thereof [I add, or claiming such Ju­risdiction upon Ecclesiastical Constitution] and claiming it from his Universal Pastorship, that these two are incompatible. ‘Because (saith he, Answer to Catholick Gent. p. 101. compared with Schism, p. 107.) the one supersedes the other, and the same Right cannot be held by two Tenures.’ In all which I see no true arguing.

§. 58 To Bishop Bramhal I say: The Pope may have an universal Head-ship by divine Institution as to certain Superintendencies over all the Church, and a Patriarchal by humane. Institution as to some other, extending only to a part of the Church: and thus may have limited Jurisdiction (as to Place) for the one, unlimited for the other, without any Contradiction. As also the same Person hath the subordinate Jurisdictions of a Bishop (and also in some poor Bishopricks of the Rector of a Parish too) of a Metropolitan, and of a Primate, all well consisting. So one may be by a Prince made Governour of a whole Pro­vince in respect of some command which he hath over it all; and may be made by the same King, or by any other, to whom the King hath given the bestowing of such a Dignity, Gover­nour also of one City in that Province, in respect of some other Offices, diverse from the former; which Offices he may exer­cise [Page 64]over that Town only, and not likewise over the Province. Next suppose the Popes claim of the universal Pastor-ship un­just; he cannot cease thereby to be what he is, because he claimeth something more than he is; no more to be Patriarch still, than to be Metropolitan or Primate still: nor can the Obedience Canonically due to him as such, be with-held, be­cause on a wrong Title he claims somewhat more not due, or some other way abuseth his Office: No more then a Prince's Oppressions, or other misdemeanors discharge their Subjects Allegiance.

To Dr. Hammond; The universal Pastor-ship and Patri­arch-ship are not one, but two Rights; and something held by the Patriarch-ship over the West, which is not by the o­ther over the whole Church. But were it otherwise, the same Right may be held by many Tenures. A Kingdome by Inheritance; and by Conquest, supposing Conquest a Good Title against an Heir when these two are in several persons: A parcel of Land by Donation, and by Purchase. By many Tenures I say, so that as long as these are inherent in the same person, when one is judged to fail, the right may be chal­lenged by another; and so that no other can dispossess such person, unless he prove not one, but all his titles faulty.

§. 59 9. If they cannot quit, or make forfeit the Roman Patri­archship by one of these two last Allegations: 9. Next, they seek to dissolve themselves from it by transferring it, or erecting a new Patriarch-ship instead thereof; which thing, they say, is in the Power of any Prince at any time to do within his own Dominions, and so after this, that a National Church is freed from their Obedience to the former. Of which thus Bishop Bramhal, Vindic. p. 256. ‘Tho the Roman Bishops had sometimes a just Patriarchal Power, and had forfeited it neither by Rebellion, nor abuse; yet the King, and the whole Body of the Kingdome by their legislative Power, substract­ing their Obedience from them, and erecting a new Patriar­chate within their own Dominions, it is a sufficient warrant for all Englishmen to suspend their Obedience to the one, and apply themselves to the other, for the welfare and tran­quility of the whole Body Politick.’ And Reply to Chalced. [Page 65]p. 238. ‘Suppose (saith he) that the Brittanick Churches have been subjected to the Bishop of Rome by General Coun­cils, yet upon the great Mutation of the State of the Em­pire, and the great variation of Affairs since that time, it had been very lawful for the King and the Church of Eng­land to substract their Obedience from the Bishops of Rome (tho they [ i. e. the Bishops of Rome, by claiming the Title of universal Pastor] had not quitted their Patriarchate) and to have erected a new Primate at home among themselves.’ So He. But much more copiously Dr. Hammond: Who relies very much on, and frequently recurrs to, this Relief, for ren­dring the Church of England's departure, from this their former. Patriarch free from Schism. Schism, p. 115. ‘To put this whole matter (saith he) out of Controversy [ i. e. concern­ing the Pope's Supremacy, upon the title of Conversion of England] it is, and it hath always been in the Power of Chri­stian Emperors and Princes within their Dominions to erect Patriarchates; or to translate them from one City to another: and therefore whatever Title is supposable to be acquired by the Pope in this Island upon the first planting of the Gospel here, this cannot so oblige the Kings of England ever since, but that they may freely remove that Power from Rome to Canterbury; and subject all the Christians of this Island to the Spiritual Power of this Arch-Bishop or Primate independent­ly from any Forreign Bishop. And p. 142. Thus certainly the King being the Fountain of all Power and Authority, [A Supposition unproved, and denyed as to Ecclesiastical Au­thority, and so what he builds on it unsound] as he is free to communicate this Power to one, so he is equally free to recall and communicate it to another. And therefore may as free­ly bestow the Power of Primate and chief Metropolitan of England, or (which is all one) of a Patriarch on the Bishop of Canterbury, having formerly thought fit to grant it to the Bishop of Rome, as he, or any of his Ancestors, can be deem­ed to have granted it to the Bishop of Rome. And this takes off all obligation of Obediencs in the Bishops to the Pope, at the first minute, that he is by the King divested of that Power. Which freedome from that Obedience, immedi­ately clears the whole business of Schism, as that is a depar­ture [Page 66]from the Obedience of a lawful Superior.’ Again p. 132. ‘Upon that one ground the Power of Kings in Gene­ral, and particularly ad hunc actum, to remove Patriarchates, whatsoever can be pretended against the lawfulness of the Reformation in these Kingdomes, will easily be answered.’ By these places you see he makes this, the Regal Power to re­move Patriarchates, the main Bulwark for defending the Re­formation from Schisme.

And for proof of such a Power in Kings he instanceth α. α In the Emperor Justinian, §. 60 his erecting the Bishoprick of Justini­ana prima, and afterward of Carthage; β. β And the Emperor Valentinian, before him, his erecting Ravenna into a Patri­archship independent in Jurisdiction on that of Rome. γ. γ Next he urgeth the 12th and 17th Canons of the Council of Chal­cedon, 38th of the Council in Trullo, mentioning the Em­perors Authority to erect new Mother Cities for places of Justice, and the Councils ordering the Churches Metropoli­tan Dignity to follow it, Ibid. 6. c. §. 14. δ. δ And lastly he instanceth in the Kings of England anciently transferring, or dividing Bishopricks, and erecting new, Ibid. §. 15. See in the Author how he prosecutes these. They labouring thus by such pretended Power of the Civil Magistrate to free a National Church from any Ecclesiastical Dependency abroad.

§. 61 In Answer to which, 1. Let it be conceded; That Sove­reign Princes may present such persons, as they approve for discharging Ecclesiastical Functions within their Kingdomes; may join, divide Bishopricks, transfer Metropolitan-ships; or erect new ones, &c. Provided that the Canonical Ecclesi­astical Superiors consent to the introduction of the Persons they present, into such places; and confer the Spiritual Au­thority and Jurisdiction such persons shall exercise in them: and that nothing herein be done contrary to the things estab­lished by former Ecclesiastical Canons: (which Canons if lawfully made by the Church, can be dissolved by none, save the same Authority.) The Question therefore here is, whe­ther there being already a Subordination of Metropolitans and Primates, and their Synods to the higher Patriarchs, and [Page 67]their Synods established by the Church Canons (concerning which, see Consid. on the Council of Trent, §. 9. And The Guide, Second Discourse, §. 24. &c.) A Prince hath Authority to dissolve this, as to its obliging the Clergy, that is within his Dominions, by setling this Patriarchal Authority on one of his own Metropolitans, or Primates, which is setled formerly by the Church on another? For Example; whether a Sove­reign Prince of Pentapolis or Lybia, can release the Bishops of Pentapolis from their Canonical Obedience to the Patriarch of Alexandria, and his Synods, and subject them to another Bishop of his own nomination, within Pentapolis.

§. 62 And herein: 1. Their own Concessions seem against it. For Bishop Bramhal thus frees the Church of England from Schisme, Vindic. p. 257. Num. 1. ‘Neither the Papal Power which we have cashiered, nor any part of it, was ever given to any Patriarch by the ancient Canons; and by consequence the Separation is not Schismatical.’ And, ‘A Power (saith Dr. Hammond in Answer to S. W. Answer to Schism disarmed, p. 164.) Princes have had to erect Metropoles, but if it be exercised so, as to thwart known Canons and Customes of the Church, this certainly is an Abuse. And Schism, p. 60. The uppermost of the standing Powers in the Church are Arch-Bishops, Primates and Patriarchs, to whom the Bishops themselves are in many things appointed to be subject; and this Power and Subjection is defined and asserted by the an­cient Canons; and the most ancient even im-memorial, Apo­stolical Tradition and Custome is avouched for it, as may appear Conc. Nicen. 1. Can. 4.6.’ Concil. Antioch. c. 9.20. Concil. Chalced. c. 19. concluding afterward, p. 66. ‘That there may be a Disobedience and Irregularity, and so a Schisme, even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitans, and of the Authority which they have by Canon and Primitive Custome over them.’ From which, All I observe here is; That he chargeth Schisme upon the Disobedience of an Eccle­siastical Authority when formerly established by Church Canon.

§. 62 2. If this be the Prince's Right to erect new Patriarchs, and null former Ecclesiastical Subordinations. 1. Num. 2. Either they [Page 68]must claim it, as a Civil Right; and then the Councils have been guilty of violating it, in meeting, and establishing such Subordinations without asking them leave. For Example; The 6th Canon of Nice, the first General Council, and 5th of the 2d, and 9th and 16th of the 4th would have been an usur­pation of an unjust Authority, if the Subordination of Epis­copal Sees, and erecting of Patriarchs, had belonged to the Prince, or Emperor as a Civil Right. Nor could the Bishop of Rome have justly expostulated with the Oriental Bishops in the last of these Councils, for passing such a Canon for advan­cing the Bishoprick of Constantinople into a Patriarchate next to that of Rome, without his consent; if this thing belonged to the Emperors Civil Power, who much desired such an Ex­altation of the Constantinopolitan Bishop. Nor would the Ori­ental Bishops have forborn to have pleaded this Title, especi­ally this Council being called after the precedent, that is urg'd of Valentinian touching Ravenna, and in his days, yet such Right of the Emperor the Eastern Bishops do not pretend to at all; But in their Epistle to Leo earnestly request his consent, using this as one argument to obtain it. Sic enim & pii Prin­cipes [the two Emperors Valentinian and Theodosius] compla­cebunt, quae tanquam legem tuae Sanctitatis Judicium firmave­runt. And the Emperors Presidents in the Council do, Act. 16th, leave the disposal thereof wholly in the Councils hands, and to be directed by the former Church Canons: Where Conc. Nic. 6. Mos antiquus obtineat, is strongly pleaded by the Roman Legates and also afterward by Leo, which voids both Justinjan's and Valentinian's, or any other Emperors Innova­tions against the Roman Bishops former Jurisdictions further then his consent is obtained therein.

Again: Since Heathen Princes have the same Title with Christian to all Civil Rights, neither could the Church, when under them, have lawfully practiced such a Jurisdiction.

2. Or else Princes must claim it as a thing conceded to them by the Church, to change and alter such Subordinations. Now any such Concession from the Church we find not: but this we find in the 8th General Council, 21. c. Definimus nemi­nem prorsus mundi potentium; quenquam eorum qui Patriarcha­libus sedibus praesunt, in-honorare, aut movere a proprio Throno [Page 69]tentare, sed omni reverentia & honore dignos judicare. And yet further. Si vero quis aliqua seculari potestate fruens, pel­lere tentaverit praefatum Apostolicae Papam, aut aliorum Pa­triarcharum quenquam, Anathema sit. And 22. Canon, Definit neminem Laicorum Principam, vel Potentum, semet inserere electioni vel Promotioni Patriarchae, vel Metropolitae, aut cujuslibet Episcopi, ne videlicet inordinata hinc & incongrua fiat confusio, vel contentio: praesertim, cum nullam in talibus Potestatem quenquam potestatum vel Caeterorum Laicorum ha­bore conveniat. Unless here perhaps, the Concession of the particular Clergy of such a Prince be urged; but none such can be valid against the Canons of their Superiors. Dr. Ham­mond being asked this Question; How Princes come by such a Right of Translating Patriarchs, by S. W. Answers thus. Answer to Schism Disarm'd, p. 174. ‘I, that meant not to dis­pute of such Mysteries of State, &c. finding the same things assumed by Kings as their Right, and yielded by the Church to be enjoyed by them [both which Catholicks deny, nor do his Instances prove it] thought I might hence conclude, this to be unquestionably their due; but whether it were by God immediately conferred on them, and independently from the Church; or whether the Church in any Nation were the Medium, that God used now under the Gospel to con­fer it on them, truly I neither then was, nor now am inclin'd, either to enquire, or to take upon me to determine.’ [Not knowing, you see, which way safely to take. For if this Priviledge were conceded by the Church, may not the Church according to their Principles resume it, when abused? But if this originally a Civil Right, the Church hath usurped their Power in her making Constitutions concerning it.]

§. 63 3. Such Priviledge granted to Princes would utterly over­throw the Unity of Church-Government; there seeming for preserving this, as great a necessity of subjecting the Prelates of several Regions and Countries to one Patriarch, as of seve­ral Bishops in the same Country to one Metropolitan, or Pri­mate, or more. In that Church-Divisions are apter to arise between States totally independent on one another, than in the same State united at least in one Secular Head. And [Page 70]that which is urged for a reason to induce the independency of National Primates, viz. the Division of the Empire into so many absolute Principalities, infers rather the contrary: that the universal Government of the Church (which is but one in all these Kingdomes) should be now, if possible, closer linked together, then formerly; and the more likely, that Sects, and Distractions are to grow in the Church by reason of so many States, some of which may be perverted by Heresy, or Schisme, the more need of an union in some one Ecclesi­astical Head. As the Roman Common-wealth, in more dan­gerous Invasions of Enemies, chose a Dictator; and Armies are thought freest from Mutinies and Seditions, when com­mitted to one General.

§. 64 Not can it be faid, that it is a sufficient guard of this Unity, that in a General Council all these Primates and other Mem­bers of the Church Catholick are collected and joined.

For 1st if it lye within a Prince's Power to free his Natio­nal Clergy from a Patriarch, and his Synods; why not, also from a General Council; i. e. so far as that the Acts thereof shall not conclude such National Clergy without their con­sent? And if the Church-Canons ordering the contrary, bind them not for the one, Submission to Patriarchs, when the Prince orders otherwise, why for the other, Submission to General Councils? But next, were a General Council a stand­ing Court, or often, or easily convened, there might indeed be some remedy from thence; but these hapning so seldome, and that on the terms Protestants require them, perhaps can be never: the standing Superiority, and Jurisdiction, not movea­ble at pleasure of Patriarchs over Primates, and so of Primates over inferior Bishops, seems a means of Unity most necessary in the long intervals of the other highest Courts. Else sup­posing, That a Valentinian, or a Constantius, having the Power to translate, and erect Primates and Patriarchs, shall transfer Ambrose his Primacy, or Siricius, or Athonasins his Patriarch­ship, to the Bishop of some other City; so, as Henry the Eighth is supposed to have translated Clement the Seventh's Patriarch-ship to the Bishop of Canterbury: and what Heresy may not such Emperor advance, as he pleaseth, if he can find [Page 71]at least some Clergy on his side? And what wrong did those Popes, and Councils, to the Emperor Constantius, in their maintaining Athanasius still in his former Authority and Ju­risdiction against him?

§. 65 The Doctor's Instances will not much trouble us, Con­cerning α α the first and chiefest, the Bishop of Justiniana Prima. The Emperor Justinian's Novel 131. runs thus. San­cimus per tempus beatissimum Primae Justinanae Archiepiscopum habere semper sub sua jurisdictione Episcopos Provinciarum Daciae, &c. Et in subjectis sibi Provinciis locum obtinere sedis Apostolicae Romae, secundum ea quae definita sunt a sanctissimo Papa Vigilio. Where it is said, That this Bishop should locum obtinere Sedis Apostolicae Romae; not that he should have the Place or Dignity of an Apostolical Seat. (As Dr. Hammond ( p. 103.) would have it) but the Place of the Apostolical See of Rome. viz. as his standing Delegate for those parts subor­dinate to him: the Phrase being frequently used in this, but I think never in the other, Sense; which is acknowledged by Dr. Field who saith, Of the Church, p. 563. ‘He was appoint­ed the Bishop of Rome's Vice-gerent in those Parts to do things in his name, and by his Authority: Naming there many other Bishops in other places executing the like Vicar-ship for the Pope: The Bishop of Sevil; Arles, Thessalonica, and others: and this also the words following in the Novel, Secundum ea, quae definita sunt a Sanctissimo Papa Vigilio, do sufficiently declare.’ To which may be added the Request of this Deputation of the Bishop of Justiniana made by the Em­peror Justinian to Agapetus, Vigilius his Predecessor, who de­laying his Grant of it, returned him this Answer; Epist. 4. De Justiniana Civitate gloriosi Natalis vestri conscia, necnon & de nostrae Sedis vicibus injungendis, quid, servato beati Petri, quem diligitis, Principatu & vestrae Pietatis affectu, plenius deliberari contigerit, per cos quos ad vos dirigimus Legatos (Deo Propitio) celeriter intimamus. If you would have yet more Evidence, see the Pope's continued Confirmation of this Pri­mate, or Arch-Bishop, tho consecrated by his own Bishops, as usual, by sending him the Pall, and his deputing the judg­ment of Causes to him in his stead, Greg. Ep. 4. l. Indic. 13. [Page 72] Ep. 15. And 10. l. 5. Indic. Ep. 34. And 2. l. Ep. 6. The same things may be said of the Primate of Carthage, pretend­ed only to be admitted to the like Priviledges with the Bishop of Justiniana Prima.

Concerning β the [...] of Ravenna. βAs the Palli­um is taken for an Archiepiscopal Ornament derived from the Emperors own habit to add the more Honour to such Pre­lates, §. 66 for which see Dr. Hammond in Schism disarmed, p. 149. So it might be solely in the Emperors Donation; but as it is a Ceremony used at the Instalment of a Bishop in the Archi­episcopal Jurisdictions, so it belongs only to the Spiritual Su­periors, who only can bestow such an Authority as before Constantine's time, so after.

2. Whatever Priviledge that was, That John Bishop of Ravenna claimed, who (Dr. Hammond saith) was the first that publickly contested his Right with the Bishop of Rome (per­haps a Donation of this Pall at once for that Bishop, and all his Successors, not to be reiterated from the Pope's upon every new Election) it appears clearly from St. Gregory, 2. l. Ep. 54. that he claimed such Priviledge, not singly from the Emperors Rescript, but also from a Grant of the Roman Bishop; St. Gregory there denying any such Grant. And also the same Gregory in 5. l. Ep. 8. in his sending the Pall after this to Maximinianus Bishop of Ravenna, and confirming his Priviledges. Quae suae pridem concessa esse constat Ecclesiae mentions the Motive to be, Provocatus; not only antiquae consuetudinis or dine; which Dr. Hammond takes notice of, Ibid. p. 151. and applies to the Emperors Rescript: but, first, Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia, which Dr. Hammond omits; Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia & antiquae consuetudinis ordine, provocatus are the Popes words. But such [...] pretended to be received from the Church (Tho St. Gregory saith this Pretence was false) no way fits Dr. Hammond's purpose of the Princes bestowing such a Privi­ledge, when the Patriarch opposeth.

3. As for the Subjection of the Provinces of Aemilia unto it by the Emperor: if this be supposed done by him with­out the Churches consent, it seems contrary to the 12th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon; which permits not to Princes the dividing or changing the former Jurisdictions of Prelates. [Page 73]Yet were this thing wholly permitted to the Prince, so long as the Confirmation of such new-erected Primates is still to be received from their Canonical Superiors, no Faction, Division, or Independency can be hereby introduced into the Church; nor the Protestant Cause any whit hereby relieved.

To γ The three Canons; To γ. In the first it appeareth that the Prince attempting to dispose of half the Jurisdictions of a cer­tain Metropolitan to a new Prelate set up by himself; the Council prohibits it; and reserves still the whole Jurisdiction to the former: therefore, in this Councils judgment, the Prince could do no such thing justly.

In the two last; the Prince changing or erecting a new Me­tropole, or Mother City for the Seat of Judicature, the Church, not the Prince (and so this proves no Right of his to do it.) orders, with very good reason, the change of the Seat of the Metropolitan to this Place of greatest Concourse. These Canons, then, which the Dr. urgeth for his Cause, are they not to good purpose for the contrary? I pray you view them. But meanwhile concerning the Point, so much driven at, the Princes making new Patriarchs, I must remind you here again of the Canon of the 8th General Council, Can. 21. Definimus, neminem prorsus Mundi Potentium, quenquam eorum, qui Pa­triarchalibus sedibus praesunt, in-honorare, aut movere a proprio Throno tentare, sed omni reverentia & honore dignos judicare prae­cipue quidem Sanctissimum Papam Senioris Romae, &c.

To δ. The Kings of England transplanting Metropolitan­ships, To δ. dividing Bishopricks, erecting new ones, exempting Ecclesiastical Persons from Episcopal Jurisdiction &c. Such things are denyed to be justly transacted by the Prince's sole Authority, without the consent of Church Governors, general or particular; of which see the 8th General Council, Can. 22. about Election. Nor doth the Negative Argument of the Church's consent to this not mentioned prove such Facts to have been without it: especially as to the confirma­tion of Persons so promoted by the Prince in their Ecclesiasti­cal Jurisdiction. Which thing being once taken from the Ec­clesiastical Canonical Superiors, and this power of Erecting [Page 74]Patriarchies, and Primacies, and by consequence of the be­stowing and transferring the several Priviledges thereof, sole­ly cast into the hands of a Secular Prince; and then this Prince supposed to be not Orthodox (a supposition possible;) and what confusion and mischief must it needs produce in such a body, as the Church strictly tyed in Canonical Obedience to such Superiors, and subbmitting to their judgment and decisions in Spiritual matters? By which means this seduced Prince may sway the Controversies in Religion, within his own Do­minions, what way he pleaseth, so long as there be some Ec­clesiasticks of his own perswasion, whom he may surrogate in the places of those others that gainsay. Remember the times of Constantius.

Meanwhile if the Churches Rights of a Canonical Subordi­nation of all the Clergy be strictly observed, I know not what other Indulgment about Clergy Preferments, may not with sufficient preservation of the Churches Catholick Unity be conceded to the Prince.

This from §. 59. of their Ninth Plea; the Prince's Power to erect new Patriarchs.

§. 68 10. In the last place they say: ‘That a National Church hath within it self the whole Subordination of Ecclesiastical Power and Government, 10. See Dr. Fern's Case between England and Rome, p. 26. in which a Primate is the highest; (and thus far only ascends Dr. Hammond) and so hath a supreme, and independent Power in managing all Ecclesiastical Affairs within it self, and delegating its Power to others.’ To which, I think, there needs no further Answer; the Sub­jection of these Primates, or lower Patriarchs to higher, suf­ficiently appearing from frequent ancient Church Canons, and being conceded by other Learned Protestants (For which, not often to repeat the same things, I must refer you to what is said before in γ. And in Consid. on the Council of Trent, §. 9. &c.) as also their Subjection to Patriarchal, or General Councils; in that it hath been ordinary to execute their Cen­sures upon such Primates, or also Patriarchs, when Heretical, or otherwise faulty.

HEAD. X. Concerning the Ʋnity of the Church Catholick in respect of Heresies and Schisms, and other intestine Divisions.

Concerning the Unity of the Church Catholick in respect of Heresies and Schisms and other inte­stine Divi­sions. 1. CAtholicks do hold; That one holy Catholick and Apo­stolick Church mentioned in our Creed, is not always a Body coextended to the Christian Profession, or involving all Christian Churches, (if I may so call them) or Congrega­tions, or Sects: But that some Christian Churches or Socie­ties there are, or may be that are no part of it, but do stand contradistinct to it.

2. They willingly grant; That not all differences or di­visions in Spiritual matters between particular Persons or Churches, where there is no Subordination between them, do render one or both of them, guilty of such Schism as to be­come thereby no Members of the Church Catholick.

But 3ly, they maintain; that all such Division wherein a particular person, or Church departs from the whole, or wherein a Subordinate Person or Church from all their Spiri­tual Superiors for such matters wherein Obedience is required from them by all these, or by the whole; is such Schisme, as renders them no longer any part of the Church Catholick; nor Members of the Body of Christ.

1. [From whence they conclude: 1. That a particular Per­son or Church, differing or dividing from the whole in any one Point of Faith, which is defined by the whole, and their assent or belief required thereto, cannot plead it self any more, to be one Church with, or a part of, the Church Catholick, because that it agreeth with it still in many, or in all other Points of Faith. As the Arian Churches agreeing in all other Credends, save Consubstantiallity of God the Son with the Father, became, by this no longer a part of the Church [Page 76]Catholick. 2. And likewise from hence they conclude: that those, who in their separation, 1. first deny not the Church; or Churches they separate from, to be true Churches: 2. Who profess themselves not to renounce an inward Communion with those departed from: 3. Who renounce not external Communion neither, if they may be admitted thereto on terms they can approve: 4. Who exclude not those, from whom they separate, from their own external Communion, that is if others will conform to them: 5. Who do not set up any new external Communion at all: 6. Lastly, Who do not publickly contradict the tenents or customes of those Churches from which they separate: Those, I say, who can plead all these things or themselves, are not thereby cleared from Schisme; because their Separation may be, tho, in none of these things, yet otherwise faulty (mentioned above); and tho some Churches heretofore noted for Schisme, have offended in some of these, yet it hence follows not, that those who offend in none of these are free from Schisme. 3. Again they conclude from hence, that those, who refuse to conform to something, which the Church Catholick requires of them, that they may be Partakers of her external Communion, and for this are by her thrust out of her Communion, are guilty of Schism, as well as those who before any Ejection voluntarily desert it. Else Arians, and many other Hereticks would have been no Schismaticks. 4. Lastly, That those who never were in the external Communion of the Church Catholick, yet stand guilty of Schisme, so long as upon the same reason, upon which the others left it, they do not return to it, or can­not be admitted by it.]

4. They maintain, That any particular person, or multi­tude joined together, dividing from the external Commu­nion of all other particular visible Churches of the present Age, and even from those of their own Church, as well as from the rest ( viz. from so many of it, as continue what they were, and what the Separatists also were formerly) must needs in this separate from the external Communion of the Church Catholick of the present Age [for either all, or some of these Churches, which they separate from, is so] [Page 77]and do separate from their lawful Superiors [for such is the Church Catholick in respect of any part] and so is guil­ty of that sort of Schisme, which cuts off from the whole.

5. They affirm, that the exercise of any sacred Function is to all Heretical or Schismatical Clergy, tho never so truly, or validly ordaioned, utterly unlawful; and the Sacraments and other Ordinances of the Church, to the Receivers in such Church, unbeneficial; i. e. to so many, as are conscious of the Schism; or, only thro a culpable ignorance nescient.

HEAD. XI. Concerning the Judgment and Discovery of Heresy and Schism.

Concerning the Judg­ment and Discovery of Heresy and Schism. 1. CAtholicks affirm: That all maintaining of any Te­nent contrary to the known Determination of the su­premest judgment of the Church, in matters which she de­clares of necessary Faith, is guilty of obstinacy, and so is Heresy. Likewise, that all voluntary departure from the external Communion of the Church Catholick, upon what pre­tences soever of its erring, in faith or manners, is truly cause­less; (the Catholick Church being our Guide in Spiritual mat­ters as to both what is true, and what is lawful, to whom we ought to assent and submit) and so Schisme.

But 2ly, taking the Protestant Description of them: viz. That Heresy is an obstinate Defence of Error, contrary to a necessary Article of Faith: and Schism a causless Departure, or Separation from the external Catholick Communion, and so also (being causless) from the internal; Yet Catholicks urge this as necessary; that there must be some certain Judge upon Earth authorized to decide whether such Error be a­gainst necessary Faith; and whether the Defence thereof be to be interpreted obstinacy; and whether such Departure be causless. So that all the Subjects of the Church are to receive that to be Heresy, or Schism, which this Judge pronounceth [Page 78]to be so. Else what none can know, and judge of, none can punish or separate from; nor the true extent of the Church Catholick, and its Distinction from the Heretical and Schis­matical, ever be discovered.

3. It is most reasonable, that in any differences of judg­ment concerning these, amongst Ecclesiastical Magistrates, or Courts of Judicature, the most supreme for the time being must be the Judge, to whom all ought to acquiesce. Else if a particular Person, or Church may undertake to judge these against Superiors, Heresy and Schisme will remain equally undiscovered between these two contrary Judges, as if there were none; And Heretical and Schismatical Churches will still free themselves of it by their own Judgment; and that Person or Church, which contends for such Priviledge at any time, gives great suspition that they are in such manner faulty.

4. It seems clear, that all separation of a particular Person or Church from the external Communion of all the rest, will always by such Judge either be pronounced causless, or the cause thereof be rectified; and so the Division cease, if these Churches that are departed from, be the Judges of it. For doubtless these, if they should condemn themselves, will also correct in themselves what they do condemn.

HEAD. XII. Concerning Submission of Private Judgments to this Church-Authority indicated in the former Heads.

Concerning Submission of Private Judgments. 1. IT is conceded by Catholicks, That no man can believe any thing at all, or do any thing lawfully, against his own judgment, or conscience; as Judgment is taken here for the final Determination, upon reviewing the former Acts of the Intellect; and upon considering all reasons (as well those taken from Authority as those taken from the things them­selves) of what we ought to do.

[Page 79] 2. But notwithstanding this, 2ly, It is taken for granted, That one following his own judgment in believing, or acting, is not thereby secure from believing amiss, or acting unlaw­fully; and therefore that every one is much obliged to take care of rectifying his Judgment, or directing aright his Con­science.

3. That the same Judgment may be swayed contrary ways by several Arguments: viz. One way from the Argument drawn from Authority, and another way from his private Reason: and that when this happens, he is no less truly said to follow, and do according to, his own Judgment who judgeth it meet to follow Authority against his private Reason; then he who judgeth it meet, and so doth the contrary; i. e. fol­low his own Reason, and reject Authority: or (which is the same) follow Authority meerly for the Reasons it giveth evi­dencing to him such a Truth. Thus we without difficulty believe the Books of Scripture, that are proposed us for such by sufficient Authority, to be God's word; when we find in them some seeming contradictions, which perhaps our pri­vate Reason cannot reconcile. And every one, who believes, that God hath commanded him an assent, and submission of Judgment in Spiritual matters to his Ecclesiastical Superiors, doth, in yielding it, follow his own Judgment, even when in yielding it, he goeth contrary to his own private Reason.

4. It is freely conceded, That supposing that one hath in­fallible certainty of a thing from private Reason, or any o­ther way whatever, such person cannot possibly yield obedi­ence of assent to any Authority whatever proposing the con­trary to be believed by him.

5. But notwithstanding, 5ly, It is affirmed by Catholicks, That every one ought to yield assent, and submit his Judg­ment (even when by plausible arguments of private Reason otherways biass'd and sway'd) in all Spiritual matters, where­in such assent is required to the Authority of the Church, and those Spiritual Superiors, who are by Christ appointed in these matters the Guides of his Faith. And also, That none can ever have, from private Reason, an infallible certainty of the contrary of that which the Church enjoins him to believe.

6. But supposing, that such a certainty in some Points by [Page 80]some persons could be had; yet 6ly, If no more may plead freedome from obedience of assent to the Church's Authority, than only those, who pretend infallible certainty (as nothing less than this seems sufficient to reject so great an Authority, and so divinely assisted); then the most part of Christians (I mean all the unlearned at least, unfit to read Fathers, com­pare Texts of Scripture &c. in matters controverted) will always be obliged to follow this Authority, tho against their private Reason. And, for the other, since one may think himself infallibly certain, who is not so, (for men of contrary opinions not unfrequently, both, plead it) these seem to have, as little humility, so little security, in relying thereon; espe­cially, when, so many others, having the same Evidences, and, as these men ought to think, better Judgments, and having larger promises of Divine assistance, and lastly, appointed for their Guides, shall apprehend so much certainty of, as to de­cree the contrary.

7. To one who as yet doubteth whether there be any Au­thority, or amongst many pretending to it, which of them it is, to which God hath subjected him for the guidance of his Judgment in Spiritual matters, to such a one the use of his private Reason, in the Quest thereof, is not denyed by Catho­licks. But 1st, they affirm that such Guide being found, here the use of his private Reason against such Authority ceaseth for those things, wherein he is enjoined obedience to it; which indeed are but few in comparison of those vast Volumes of Theological Controversies, wherein private Judgment still enjoys its liberty. 2ly, That, if by reason of a faulty search, such Guide is not discovered by him, none is, therefore, held excused from obedience to such Guide, or licensed to use his liberty, in both which he is culpably mistaken. 3ly, That, as it is left to our reason to seek, so that it is much easier for us by it to find out, this Guide, that is appointed to direct us; than to find out the Truth of all those things, wherein she is ready to direct us: (more easy to find out the Church, than to understand all the Scriptures:) and that from the use of pri­vate Reason in some things; none may therefore rationally claim it in all.

HEAD. XIII. Concerning the necessary Means or Motive of attaining Faith Divine and Salvifical.

Concerning the necessary means of at­taining faith Divine and Salvifical.1. IT is certain, that all Faith Divine, or wrought in us by God's Spirit, is infallible; or, that the Proposition which is so believed never is, or can be false.

2. Again Catholicks affirm; that the Authority, or propo­sal of the Church, is a sufficiently infallible ground of the Christians belief for all necessary Points of Faith. From which Infallibility in the Church (which is clearly revealed in Scripture, and by Tradition Apostolical) delivering such Points unto them, they also maintain, a firm Faith is had a­mong Catholicks of all those necessary Points which are not, in Scripture, or Tradition, as to all men, so clearly revealed. Whilst others, denying this Infallibility in the Church, either miscarry in their Faith concerning some of these Points, or can have no external firm ground of their believing them.

3. Catholicks affirm also, that a right Belief of some Arti­cles of Faith profiteth not, as to Salvation, persons Heretical in some other. But 4ly, many learned Catholicks deny, That a known Infallibility of the external Proponent or Motive of ones Faith [or a certainty, not from a firm adhesion of mind wrought by the Spirit, whereby a man is without all doubt, but from the Infallibility of the external means of his Faith, that he cannot err] is necessary, that Faith may be truly Di­vine or Salvifical; See Card. Lugo, De Virtute fidei. Dis. 1. §. 12. n. 247.251, 252. Estius 3. Sent. 23. ^d. 13. §. Layman, Theol. Moral. 2. l. 1. Tract. 5. c. or (consequently) That such external motive or means, for producing Divine Faith, need­eth to be, to every man, one, and the same; Or lastly, That one cannot have Divine Faith in any one Article of Faith who culpably erreth in any other.

HEAD. XIV. Concerning Obedience to Humane Laws, made by the Ecclesiastical or Civil Magistrate.

Concerning Obedience required to Humane Laws.1. CAtholicks do not affirm, from God's commanding Obe­dience to the Ecclesiastical and Civil Magistrate, and to their Laws, That, therefore all Dis-obedience to them, or their Laws, is a mortal Sin. For, so, all Dis-obedience to any of their Laws whatever, tho never so light for their matter, would be mortal Sin.

2. It is manifest; that many times the matter which these Magistrates command is antecedently our duty in obedience to some Divine Law under Penalty of Mortal Sin, tho they had not commanded it. As in matters of much consequence to the publick, or our private, good, the Charity to our Neigh­bour, or also to our selves, that is commanded by God's Law, requires that, which the Magistrate also exacts of us. In such cases, therefore, there may be a great, and mortal Sin, com­mitted in dis-obeying the Ecclesiastical or Civil Laws, but this by vertue of the Divine concurring with, and corrobora­ting, them in these particular Injunctions.

[Page 84] 3. Catholicks affirm, That the Breach of a humane Law (made in a thing that is left indifferent by the Divine) out of contempt may be a greater Sin, than breaking one of the Di­vine Precepts out of Infirmity; but this is also by vertue of our offending against another particular Divine Law, pro­hibiting such contempt of the Magistrate. But (such con­tempt, neglect, &c. set aside) that a much greater guilt is or­dinarily contracted from the breach of a Divine, than only an humane command, both from the greater necessity and benefit in general of the matter of the Laws Divine, and from the supreme Dignity and Majesty of the immediate Legislator.

4. Catholicks affirm, That no humane Laws made in mat­ters of what consequence soever, do bind beyond the Law-Giver's intention; so that such Laws, tho given in matters of greatest moment, bind not under pain of mortal Sin, (I mean, as they are his Laws) if he doth not intend them to do so. In whose Power since it is to lay no obligation, so not to lay the greatest.

5. That whatever obligation to Sin such Laws may have from the Law-givers intention, yet that, in some Circum­stances they may not bind at all (as the Divine do); as, in Periculo mortis; cum pergravi damno, aut infamia, for quod valde difficile moraliter impossibile; and to Impossibles Laws bind not. I say, if the thing commanded appear not of a greater consequence, than such private damage, nor hath been expressed by the Magistrate to be esteemed so. Otherwise it is presumed that the Law-Giver, in that Charity which he oweth to his Subjects, doth, or ought to, pass his Laws with­out any intention that they should bind under Sin in such cases.

6. Most of the Church's Laws are passed without any ex­press Declaration of her Subjects incurring mortal Sin in the Breach of them (yet this rationally collected by her Doctors from the great consequence of the matter commanded, the heavy punishment annexed, &c.) And sometimes her Laws are so indulgent, as to oblige to a Penalty only, without any Guilt laid upon the Transgressor of them.

HEAD. XV. Of Justification.

Of Justifi­cation.COncerning Justification, whereby man hath Right, by ver­tue of the Evangelical Covenant, to freedome from eter­nal Death, and possession of eternal Life.

1. Catholicks declare: That by Justification they mean both God's pronouncing, or reputing Man just, or not unjust: (i. e.) freed from his wrath, and from punishment due to the unjust; by God's free remission of all his former Sins. And 2ly, God's making, and so reputing, him just, or holy, by ha­bitual Grace infused; or by inherent righteousness. Thus making God's Remission of the former Acts of Sin; and our Sanctification, (and so, by it, the removal of former habits of Sin,) the two parts of our Justification; or the two effects of God's mercy in justifying us. α.

α Conc. Trid. Sess. 6.7. c. Hanc dispositionem Justificatio ipsa consequitur; quae non est Sola peccatorum remissio, sed & Sanctificatio, & Renovatio interioris hominis &c. Again: In ipsa Justificatione, cum Remissione peccatorum, haec omnia simul infusa accipit homo per Jesum Christum, cui inseritur; fidem, Spem, & Charitatem. 6. Sess. 11. Can. Si quis dixerit, homi­nes justificari Sola peccatorum remissione, exclusa gratia, & cha­ritate, quae in cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum infunditur, Anathema sit. Bellarm. de Justificationes, l. 2. 6. c. Cum tam mors Christi, quam resurrectio ad justificationem necessaria esset, potuisset Beatus Paulus utramque partem justificationis, (i. e.) Remissionem peccati, & donum renovationis tribuere morti Christi; sed maluit resurrectioni tribuere renovationem, Rom. 4.15. And §. Deinde. Justificatio non ideo Solum nobis confertur a Deo, ut Gehennae paenas evadamus [ i. e per remissionem pec­catorum] sed etiam, ut praemia vitae caelestis acquiramus [ i. e. per gratiae infusionem, & bona opera.] And see Ibid. c. 2. §. Quod si: Where he makes, remissionem peccatorum, & infusio­nem [Page 86]gratiae duos effectus Dei hominem justificantis. Where therefore renovatio interioris hominis per susceptionem gratiae is affirmed to be the formal cause of Justification; and deletion of Sin, to be the effect of it. It is spoken of the only formal cause of Justification, that is within us, and from which we are denominated really just (whereas the remission of Sin is an act of God without us); and of the deletion of the habit of Sin inherent, not of the pardon of the acts of Sin formerly committed.

After that, this is agreed on also by Protestants; that these two go always together, and that none is reconciled or re­ceived into God's favour by remission of Sin, who is not also, at the same time, renewed in his mind, and made righteous by infusion of the Holy Spirit. β.

β. Calvin, Institut. Lib. 3. ch. 14. §. 9. Fatemur dum nos, intercedente Christi justitia, sibi reconciliat Deus ac gratuita peccatorum remissione donatos pro justis habet, cum ejusmodi misericordia conjunctum hoc esse beneficium, quod per Spiritum suum in nobis habitat, Lib. 3. cap. 16. §. 1. Jam utrumque nobis confert Christus, & utrumque fide consequimur, vitae scilicet novitatem, & gratuitam reconciliationem. De vera Christianae pacificationis ratione. 2. Cap. Si quis ex adverso ob­jiciat non aliter nos fieri participes Christi justitiae, quia dum ejus Spiritu in obedientiam legis renovamur, hoc quidem fatendum est, &c. Again: Neque vero cum homines dicimus gratis justifi­cari Christi beneficio, tacenda est regeneationis gratia. Quin po­tias cavendum, ne a nobis separentur, quae perpetuo Dominus con­jungit. Quid ergo? Doceantur homines fieri non posse, ut justi censeantur Christi Merito, quin renoventur ejus Spiritu in sanctissi­mam vitam; frustraque gratuita Dei adoptione gloriari omnes, in quibus Spiritus regenerationis non habitat; denique nullos a Deo recipi in gratiam, qui non justi quoque vere fiant.

Mountague, Appeal p. 170. Whom Christ doth not quicken he doth not justify. This is directly the Doctrine of the Scrip­ture. Gal. 3.22. 1. Cor. 6.11. Heb. 9.14. Rev. 1.5, 6. 1. Pet. 2.9. Fathers also are cited, &c. Bishop Forbes de Justific. Lib. 2. c. 4. Protestantes unanimi consensu fatentur inhaerentis justitiae seu sanctitatis infusionem cum gratuita nostri justificatione necessario ac perpetuo conjunctam esse.

[Page 87] Now first that our Justification consists not only in the for­mer, but also in the later, Catholicks evidently collect from many Texts of Scripture; which do apply our freedome from God's wrath, and punishment, and inheriting eternal life to this later; as other Texts do to the former. Such are these. Rom. 3.24. Where we are said to be justified freely [ i. e. with­out any thing in us deserving it] by his Grace [ i. e. infused, as all grant it is, at that time when God justifies us.] Titus 3.5. ver. Where speaking of Baptisme, the Apostle saith, That according to his mercy he saved us by the laver of regeneration, and renovation [ i. e. internal] of the Holy Ghost; that being justi­fied by his Grace [ i. e. in this internal renovation &c.] we should be made Heirs of eternal life. 1. Cor. 6.11. compared with the former; where speaking of the same Baptisme he saith, But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justi­fied in the name of the Lord Jesus [into which they are bap­tized] and by the Spirit of God [ i. e. infused in our Baptisme; by which infused we are said here expresly, as to be sanctified, so justified; and this put the last, as also Rom. 8.30. it is put alone, but there necessarily including also our Sanctification.] Rom. 4.25. Where Christ is said to be delivered for our offences [ i. e. the remission of them], and to be raised again for our justification [ i. e. for our regeneration or renovation by the Spirit given unto us upon his Resurrection] comp. Rom. 8.10. Eph. 4.23, 24. [where the new man is said to be created in justice] Gal. 5, 6. comp. 6.15. Rom. 6.7. He that is dead [ i. e. to Sin by a new life given by Grace] is justified from Sin, comp. Gal. 3.21. Rom. 5.17.21. Where 'tis said, That those who receive abundance of Grace, and donation of Justice, shall reign in life, &c. And that Grace reigneth [ i. e. in us] by [or thr] Justice to life eternal. It were needless to add more. To the same matter belong all those Texts, wherein we are said, By being born again, and by inherent righteousness, to be made Friends, Domesticks, Children, Heirs of God. All those Texts which atribute Salvation, or also remission of Sin, or punishment, either to the several particular habits and branches of this inherent Righteousness (as to that of Faith, of Hope, or Charity, of the Love, or Fear, or Service of God; or Love, Mercy, and Alms to our Neighbour); or to the several Act: [Page 88]of these Habits, and Graces; [ i. e. to our good works, follow­ing Regeneration.]

Lastly, All those Texts, wherein God is said, To accept per­sons for their inherent holiness, or righteousness. And as this is evident in Scripture, so it is concluded by many Protestants; that the Term Justification, both, sometimes in Scripture, and most frequently by the Fathers, is used to signify not only remission of Sin, but internal Sanctification: and in this La­titude have several Protestants themselves explained it. γ.

γ. Bishop Forbes de Justificatione, Lib. 2. Cap. 4. cioncern­ing the Scriptures. Verbum, justificari, quandoque etiam in Scriptura significare, justitia imbui, vel donari, non diffitentur per­multi docti Protestantes; contra aliorum rigidorum id pertinaci­ter negantium sententiam; quoting there the words of Beza, Zanchy, Peter Martyr, Chamier, and others. Again concern­ing the Fathers, Ibid. c. 5. Hanc fuisse communem Patrum om­nium tum Graecorum, tum Latinorum Sententiam, ex quam­plurimis illorum dictis, Augustini imprimis acerimi gratiae Christi propugnatoris, nemini, in veterum lectione versato, obscu­rum esse potest. Res adeo certa, & manifesta est, ut dissentientes ipsimet [Protestantes] id ultro concedunt; quoting the Con­fessions of Calvin, Chemnitius Beza, Bucer, Chamier, &c. to this purpose. Imo (saith the same Forbes) multi etiam doctissi­mi Protestantes▪ hanc ipsam sententiam secuti sunt, aut saltem eam non omnino improbarunt; quoting after many others, Spa­latensis, Bishop Mountague, and Dr. Feild: Whose words are, Append. 3. l. 11. c. ‘The first Justification implyeth in it three things, remission of Sins past, acceptation and receiving into that favour, that righteous men are wont to find with God; and the grant of the gift of the Holy Spirit, and of that sancti­fying and renewing Grace, whereby we may be framed to the declining of Sin, and doing of the works of righteousness.’

2. Again Catholicks contend, that in comparing these two concurrents to our Justification, the later [ i. e. to be made in­ternally and habitually just ut peccatis mortui justitiae vivamus, 1. Pet. 2.24.] is the chiefer, and more principal, then the first; [ i. e. to be reputed only, not unjust, or not a Sinner.] [Page 89]To which may be added, that there being two things very considerable in Sin; the transient act, and the remaining habit; of which the later is far the worse; and of which it is necessary, that the one be deleted, as well as the other par­doned, for any one to be accounted positively just, or not im­pious; this later (the habit) is not removed or abolished, but by Grace first infused; and also, whether before, or rather after the same Grace infused, our former actual Sins are par­doned, is thought by Protestants a thing doubtful, and not ne­cessary to be decided.δ.

δ. See the words of Calvin, in Antidoto Conc. Trident. Of Beza contra Illyricum, and others in Forbes de Justific. 2. l. 4. c. p. 70, 71. Simul nos, & justificari, & renovari, (saith Calvin) dico in Christo per fidem nobis unito & applicato: neque haec an illa ordine antegrediatur, tantillum laborandum censeo, cum unam sine altera nunquam recipiamus.

This infusion of Grace therefore, by several titles, claims the chief place in our Justification, and is that thing only in us that justifieth or maketh us to be really just; and so is usu­ally stiled the formal cause of our Justification.

3. Meanwhile, both the one and the other being the effects only of God's mercy, Catholicks affirm: That since God justi­fieth us, not for those, but for the righteousness and suffer­ings of Christ, as the sole meritorious cause thereof, it is not necessary, as to our Justification, in respect of inherent righte­ousness, that this be every way consummate and perfect.

4. Nay further; they freely concede, that it is such, as, that it doth produce some particular acts perfect and without con­tagion of Sin, learned Protestants assenting. ε.

ε. Forbes, Ibid. c. 5. Ecquid magis injuriose & contumeliose dici potest in Christi Gratiam; quam asserere, nos nihilominus nihil prorsus vel cogitare, vel dicere, vel agere posse quod purum sit a peccati Sorde? And §. 13. Sententia haec rigida multis etiam doctissimis Protestantibus, aliisque viris moderatissimis, semper unprobata fuit; quoting them at large, Ibid.

Yet, ordinarily, it doth many, or the most, mixt with seve­ral [Page 90]imperfections; and that Venial Sins do both adhere to, and intervene between, many of the good actions of the justi­fied. ζ.

ζ. Estius, 2. Sent. 41. d. 4. §. Et justi in iis operibus, quae indubitate bona sunt, saepe-numero peccant, dum its se aliquonsque vel concupiscentiae, vel negligentiae, vel alicujus levioris circum­stantiae ad integritatem boni operis requisitae defectus admiscent. Forbes de Justificatione, 4. l. 3. c. 8. §. Communiter sentiunt Romani, nullum Sanctorum vitare posse omnia venialia peccata per longum vitae tempus. Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. Can. 23.

Which Sins after are remitted only by God's Mercy through Christ's Merits, as those are before Justification. γ.

γ. Bellarm. de Justificat. 4. l. 14. c. In Answer to the Ob­jection [Post primam reconciliationem Christus ociosus esset] saith, no; Quoniam peccata nostra, quamvis levia & quotidi­ana, ipse purgat, & sanguis ejus emundat nos ab omni peccato. Estius, 2. Sent. 42. d. 6. §. Nemo quantumcunque justus, nisi sanguine Christi Redemptoris etiam a Veniali peccato emundatus fuit, in regnum Dei admitti potest. See the same in Bellarm. de Justificat. 4. l. 21. c. §. Resp. non dicit.

5. Lastly, Several learned Catholicks do not hold this in­herent righteousness or internal renovation so absolutely ne­cessary to mans Justification; i. e. to remission of Sin, or ca­pacity of future Glory, as that none possibly could, had it so pleased God, received from him pardon of his offences; or also, through virtue of Christ's merits, an eternal glory, without having such inherent righteousness, and whilst he only re­duced to his pure Naturals; or that none could possibly, or justly, be deprived of Glory, that hath such inherent righte­ousness; Vid. Bellarmin de Justificat. 2. l. 16. c. Reatus paenae. quartus effectus. Scotus, 1. Sent. 17. d. F. a Sanct. Clara Deus, Natura, Prob. 23.) But only maintaining, that it is God's Pact or Covenant, and declared Will, that Christ's Merits should, this and no other way, merit for us freedome from Hell, and life eternal: Namely, First by satisfying for our former Sins; and procuring for us this donation of [Page 91]the sanctifying Spirit within us. 2ly, What Catholicks do in­clude in, and understand by Justification, being thus explain­ed: Next they affirm, that there is nothing in man, that can antecedently merit this our Justification; but that the sole meritorious cause of it, both in respect of remission of Sin, or any punishment due unto it, and of the donation of Grace destroying in us the habits and pollutions of Sin, and pro­ducing good works, is the obedience active and passive; the works, labours, sufferings, and satisfactions of Jesus Christ only, exclusive to the works, sufferings, or satisfactions of any other. Where also they maintain, that neither any works of our's, done by the meer strength of nature, have the least worth in them to procure God's assistant Grace, for the pro­ducing of any previous disposition to this Justification (as of Faith, Repentance, a love of God &c.) Nor again these dis­positions, tho wrought by assistant Grace, and having some supernatural dignity in them, have any such worth, as, by it to procure from God (setting aside his meer bounty and free promise) the Justification it self. ζ.

ζ. Conc. Trid. Sess. 6.8. c. Nihil eorum quae justificationem praecedunt, sive fides, sive opera, ipsam justificationis gratiam pro­meretur. 'Tis true that these dispositions to, or conditions of, man's Justification, as effected by Grace, having some true worth in them (tho this no way comparable to the Acts pro­duced by Grace inherent after Justification), and, besides ha­ving a gracious promise made to, or acceptance of, them (which two things none can deny) some Catholick Authors think, that this word Meritum, qualifying it with the ad­dition de congruo, may be justly applyed to them (especially since St. Austine, and other Fathers, have so applyed it for­merly (St. Austine, and other Fathers, have so applyed it for­merly (St. Aust. Ep. 105, 106.) others think not; the mat­ter agreed on, the difference is about words, and the Church's Subjects left to their liberty: See Bellarm. de Justific. 1. l. 21. c. And see Head XVI. Merits.

3. Yet they next affirm: That there are some conditions or dispositions required of us, and also by God's free, first ex­citing, and then assisting, Grace (man's Will assenting and co-operating) wrought in us: Which, tho by any worth of [Page 92]theirs they cannot merit, yet by vertue of God's free Promise, and the new Covenant, do certainly impetrate the applying (or if Protestants Will, imputing) to us both the active and passive Obedience of Christ, viz. all his Merits, which are ac­cepted by God instead of, and as if they had been, our own: but this not as to our being esteemed by God our selves to have done them; (for none can truly be said, or thought, to have performed such righteousness, or satisfactions, that hath not done them himself, but another for him); but as to the bene­fit, or effect of them. χ.

χ. Bellarm. de Justificat. 2. l. 10. c. Dominus Jesus Christus justitia nostra, 1. Cor. 1. Quoniam satisfecit Patri pro nobis, & eam Satisfactionem ita nobis donat, & communicat, cum nos justi­ficat, ut nostra satisfactio, & justitia dici potest: And a little after. Non esset absurdum, si quis diceret nobis imputari Christi justitiam, & merita, cum nobis donentur, & applicentur, ac si nos ipsi Deo satisfecissemus; modo non negetur, esse in nobis prae­terca justitiam inhaerentem &c. Again, Ibid. 7. c. Si solum vellent, nobis imputari Christi merita [or justitiam] quia nobis donata sunt, & possumus ea Deo Patri offerre pro peccatis nostris &c. Recta esset eorum sententia. Cap. 11. Potest sano modo accommodari exemplum Patriarchae Jacob justitiae imputativae, si quis dicat; oportere, ut induamus merita Christi [I add, or Justitiam, sive obedientiam activam, Christi, for this also is part of his Merits,] (See Bellarm. de Christo, 5. l. 9. c initio) and illis quodammodo tecti, petamus a Deo indulgentiam pecca­torum: nam solus Christus, pro peccatis nostris satisfacere potuit. I add, tam obedientia activa (See Rom. 5.18, 19. Gal. 4.4, 5. Phil. 2.5. &c. Matt. 3.15) quam passiva: and illa satis­factio nobis donatur, & applicatur, & nostra reputatur, cum Deo reconciliamur, & justificamur. Thorndike, Epilog. 2. l. 29. c. p. 248. ‘The Supposition, that one man's doings or sufferings, may be personally, and immediatly imputed to a­nother man's account is utterly unreasonable. And I there­fore must, and do, say; that as it is sufficient, so it it is true, that the sufferings of Christ are imputed unto us in the na­ture of a meritorious cause, moving God to grant mankind those terms of Reconcilement, which the Gospel importeth.’

[Page 93] Not all the benefit and effect in such a manner, as that what­ever is any way due to the active or passive righteousness of Christ, is thus due to us: (for so we should all receive a future reward equal to one another; and also equal to that of Christ our Lord's); but all that benefit and effect of them, which our sinful condition stands in need of; and which God hath further thought fit to dispence, for the purchasing, (by an equal compensation and satisfaction) of our present pardon and future Glory. The benefit and reward of which merits, as to our glorification, he applies variously, according to the different degrees of our own present sanctity and good works, that dispose us for such a participation of these Merits. Such dispositions, produced by prevenient and assistant Grace (in adultis) are a certain degree of Faith, or believing the truth of all the Divine Revelations and Promises; and particularly that of God's justifying the ungodly by his Grace, thro the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; the fear of God's judg­ments for Sin; hope and trust in his mercy thro Christ; love of his goodness; hate, and repentance, for former Sins; seri­ous purpose of a better life, and observance of God's Com­mandments; and the desire, and susception (where oportuni­ty) of Baptisme, the Sacrament instrumental hereunto. (See Conc. Trid. Sess. 6.6. c.) 4ly, They grant, that among these previous dispositions or conditions of Justification, Faith is the beginning of the rest; and so the Foundation and root of all our Justification, and that without which it is impossible, in any other act, to please God. So, we neither fear God's Judgments; nor hope for his Pardon; nor love his Goodness; nor put confidence in his only Son's Merits, unless we first believe these. And therefore St. Paul opposing the con­dition of the new Covenant [Faith, and all other acts, or works following it, as by God's promise to them, and not their own worth, applying Christ's Merits to us for our Justi­fication] to the merits of the works of the Law, in the Jew; and of Nature in the Gentile: (but never opposing Faith to any of those acts of Grace consequential, so long as these main­tained, in no other manner, to concur to our Justification, than Faith it self doth; therefore most perfectly agree­eth with St. James. λ.

[Page 94] λ. Mr. Thorndike, Just Weights, 9. c. p. 60. ‘To be justi­fied by Faith alone is, with St. Paul, to be justified by Chri­stianity alone. St. James in arguing that a Christian is justi­fied by Works and not by Faith alone; intended to teach, that the profession of Christianity justifieth not, when it is not performed.’ Bishop Forbes de Justifie. 4. l. 6. c. p. 173. Sanctus Paulus intellexit semper ex fide viva, & quatenus viva, [i. e. operante vel externe vel interne per charitatem] nos justi­ficari. Atque hoc ipsum est, quod Beatus Jocobus hic, sed Paulo clarius, & distinctius, affirmat; hominem ex operibus justificari, & non ex fide tantum. The same thing appears from St. Paul's Arguments made against Justification by Works, many of which are faulty, if made against Works following Faith, and wrought by Grace. As his arguing, Rom. 4.4. Rom. 4.13. compared with 2.6. 1. Cor. 3.13, 14. Jo. 15.10. Gal. 2.21. —5.4. —3.13. Eph. 2.8, 9, 10. Tit. 3, 4, 5. Phil. 3.9. compared with the precedent verses, 3, 4, 5, 6. and with Rom. 10.3. —9.31. In all, or most of which, if instead of works of the Law, you read works of the formerly justified and pardoned their Sins by God's meer mercy produced by Grace, that is procured by Christ's merits, you will find the arguing and consequence invalid and faulty. This Apostle, I say, mentions this Faith more frequently than the rest; as being the very beginning, and first fruits of Divine Grace, and that without which none of the rest, that are added to it, either can be at all, or if being, can be any thing worth. μ.

μ. Conc. Trid. Sess. 6.8. c. Cum vero Apostolus dicit, justifi­cari hominem per fidem; per fidem ideo justificari dicimur, quia fides est humanae salutis initium, fundamentum, & radix omnis justificationis; sine qua impossibile est placere Deo, & ad filiorum ejus consortium pervenire. Stapleton de Justificat. 8. l. c. ult. Fide nos necessario vel ante omnia, & maxime justificamur, dum impius quidem justificatur; quia a fide ordiendum est; Dum justus autem justificatur magis; quia omnia justitiae opera in fide recta fieri, & a fide procedere debent. Bellarm. de Justificat. 5 l. 7. c. In homine nondum conciliato primus motus ad salu­tem est fidei; inde sequitur amor, & desiderium beatitudinis per fidem jam cognitae, post amorem sive cupiditatem Beatitudinis [Page 95]sequitur in homine spes [Mediante reconciliatione] consequendae ejusdem beatitudinis &c.

5. This Faith therefore Catholicks maintain, That it may be said in this respect primarily to justify us (I mean by way of disposition, and condition required, and accepted, from us in order thereto.) But 5ly, not it solely; either when it is not accompanied with the rest (for so it may be, but in such case is injustificant): or yet as if, when so accompanied, it alone, and not they, as well as it, and in the same manner as it, concurred to our Justification. For first, in the Scriptures frequently our Justification ( i. e. pardon of Sin, and dona­tion of Grace) is attributed as to it, so to them. See for Repentance (which also includeth fear) justifying, or pro­curing both remission of Sin, and renovation by the Spirit, the Apostles Sermons in the Acts, ch. 2. v. 38. Repent (saith St. Peter) and be Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of Sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. And Chap. 3. ver. 19. Repent ye that your sins may be blotted out. Chap. 5. ver. 31. This Prince hath God exalted to give Repentance to Israel, and remission of Sins. And Chap. 11. ver. 18. Then hath God (say the Christians) also given to the Gentiles repentance unto life. And Luk. 24.47. Our Lord commandeth, That Repentance and remission of Sin be preached in his Name unto all Nations; And Luk. 13.3.5. telleth the People, That without Repentance, they must perish (See the same, 2. Pet. 3.9. 1. Jo. 1.9. But if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive them; in so much that it is agi­tated in the Schools, whether Faith, or Repentance, in our Justification, have, I say, not the first (for Repentance pre­supposeth Faith) but the principal, place. The same may be shewed of Love: Luk. 7.47. Much is forgiven her (saith our Lord) because she loved much. And 1. Jo. 3.14. We know that we are translated from death to life, because we love the brethren; he that loveth not, abideth in death. And very frequently it is the reward of eternal Life particularly promised. See 1. Cor. 2.9. Luk. 6.35. Jam. 1.12.2.5. Rom. 8.28. 1. Cor. 16.22. The same promise of Remission of Sin, and eternal life made, yet more frequently, to Obedience, Reformation of [Page 96]Life, works of Charity and Mercy. Matt. 6.15. If ye for­give not men their trespasses, neither will the Father forgive your trespasses. Matt. 5.7. Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. Acts, 10.35. In every Nation, He that fear­eth God and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him. Heb. 6.10. God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of Love. And 2. Tim. 4.7, 8. The Lord, the just Judge, lays up a Crown of Righteousness for those who fight a good Fight. And Gal. 6.7. Be not deceived [saith the Apostle St. Paul, speaking of good works] God is not mocked; what a man sowes that shall he reap. And let no man deceive you (saith St. John, 1. Epist. c. 3. v. 7.) He that doth righteousness is righteous, even as he [our Lord Christ] is righteous. 'Tis needless to name more. See St. Jam. c. 2. v. 21. &c. Matt. 5.1. Jo. 15.14. Nay not only by their deeds, but words also, men are justified, or condem­ned. Matt. 12.37. The same promise made also to the re­ceiving of the Sacraments. Acts, c. 2.28. —22.16. Eph. 5.26. Tit. 3.5, 6, 7. This concerning the Expressions of Scripture.

2. As Faith may be conceived to justify us only by its rela­tion to, and apprehension of, Christ's Merits; and not as it is a work of our's any way meriting of, it self our Justification, so also may all the rest of the forenamed dispositions. For by Love and Hope, built on Faith, we do yet more closely appre­hend and apply these Merits, than we do by Faith alone; and as God is pleased to justify us by Christ's Merits, but not by these unknown to us, but that he first requires an eye of Faith that we see them; or if you will, a hand of Faith that we take, or lay hold of them: So he requires further the arms of Love to embrace them, and of Hope to hold them fast; and this, after that Repentance also with much importunity, and tears hath first procured our nearer access to them; otherwise whatever we think, our Faith without these, sees, or catcheth at them, but possesseth them not; and what greater opposition is there shewed to our meriting, by saying we are justified by Faith alone, and that relatively too, than that by Faith and other works of Grace; so long as we say; all, in their proper acts, only point at, and terminate in, the same Merits of Christ, not their own; as well as Faith doth? r.

[Page 97] Of this matter well the Cardinal de Justificatione, Lib. 1. 16. Cap. Esto, apprehendatur aliquo modo justificatio per fidem, certe non ita apprehenditur, ut reipsa jam habeatur, & inhaereat; sed solum, ut sit in mente per modum objecti, actione intellectus, aut voluntatis, apprehensi: at hoc modo apprehendunt etiam amor & gaudium, ut scribit St. Augustinus in Lib. 8. Cons. cap. 2. Ubi de Victorino loquens: volebant eum, inquit, omnes rapere in corsuum & rapiebant amando, & gaudendo. Hae rapientium manus erant. Dr. Fern, Answer to Scripture Mistaken, 4. c. p. 92. ‘Albeit good Works do not justify, but follow Justification, yet are there many works, or workings of the Soul required in, and to Justification. Again, These works, or workings of the Soul [naming there desire fear, love, sorrow, purposes,] are preparatory, and dispositive to Justification. And Pag. 94. There are other acts, and works also, besides Faith, which according to their measure are required in Justification, as conditions of receiving remission of Sins; so, Repentance, and the act of Charity in forgiving others.’ Bishop Forbes de Justificat. 1. l. 4. c. Sacrae literae nusquam nec diserte, nec per necessariam consequentiam, fidoi Soli omnem omnino vim justificandi tribuunt; five quod idem est, asserunt fidem esse unicum instrumentum, & medium accipiendae, & apprehendendae gratiae justificationis. Ibid. Patres plurimi nos Sola fide justificari affirmant. Sed si pura mente &c. legeris, clare videbis per vocem (Sola, Patres omnia simpliciter fidei & gratiae opera a causis justificationis, & salutis aeternae nunquam excludere voluisse. Sed primo legem naturae, & Mosaicam. Secundo opera omnia propriis viribus, sine fide in Christum, & gratia Dei praeveniente facta. Tertio falsam fidem, vel haeresin, cui tunc fidem, non autem operibus opponunt. Quarto: Operum externorum etiam ex gratia factorum, ut charitatis, paenitent [...]e Sacramentorum perceptionis necessitatem absolutam; quando scilicet aut potestas, aut occasio deest ejusmodi opera faciendi; tum enim sufficit Sola fides sine operibus externis: Sed non, sine omni bono affectu paenitentiae & dilectionis in Deum, quae opera sunt interna. Denique quinto; omnem inanem fiduciam operum no­strorum: Sive interne, sive externe factorum. Cap. 5. §. 14. Proinde censemus omnem rigidorum Protestantium sententiam, & a veritate, & a charitate Christiana, alienam esse; qui asser­tionem [Page 98]de sola fide non justificante communiter a Romanensibus defensam, citra omnem vel fidei ipsius vel meriti opinionem, etiam improprie dicti, vel aliorum operum, seu actuum cum fide ad justi­ficationem concurrentium, non solùm cum sancta Scriptura & piis Patribus e diametro pugnare contendunt; sed etiam, praeter alia innumera, justam Protestantibus a Romana Ecclesia secedendi causam praebuisse, & praebere. Dr. Hammond Pract. Catech. 1. l. §. 4. p. 75. ‘The necessary qualifications, conditions, or moral instruments of our Justification, are Faith, Repen­tance, firm purpose of a new life, and the rest of those Graces, upon which in the Gospel, pardon is promised the Christian.’ And afterwards. ‘This kind of Sanctification [so he calls the dispositions to Justification, wrought in us by God's Grace] is precedent in order of nature to Justification, i.e. I must first believe, repent, and return, before God will pardon.’

6. They affirm also, that one may have a true faith or be­lief of all the Articles of our Creed, and particularly of this, man's Redemption through Christ's Merits, or (if we take Faith for fiducia) may have also a fiducial confidence, that he in particular shall obtain, or (if you will) hath already ob­tained, remission of his Sins, through the same redemption and merits; and yet not by this Faith, or fiducia attain Justi­fication, if these be not accompanied with Repentance, and the other necessary preparations thereto. For there are many wicked and irregenerate men; who yet do truly believe all the Articles of the Creed, and are thereby fully convinced of their duty (yet led away with lusts do contrary to what they know they ought) and some of them, who are also fully (tho ground­lesly, for want of Repentance, and the other requisites) per­swaded, that themselves are of the number of the justified. ξ

ξ. Thorndike, Epilog. 2. l. p. 28. ‘It is manifest to all Christi­ans, that there are too many in the world, whom we cannot imagine to have any due title to those promises, and yet do really and verily believe the Faith of Christ to be true; and him, and his Apostles, sent from God to preach it: And [from their belief] stand convict, that they ought to pro­ceed accordingly.’ [yet] We see men not always to do that, [Page 99] ‘which reasonably [from their belief] they ought to do &c. Again on the other side; q]Trust and confidence in God through Christ obtains the promises of the Gospel, who denies it? But is this trust always well grounded and true? Is it not possible for a man to imagine his title to the promises of the Gospel to be good when it is not? I would we had no cause to believe, how oft it comes to pass.’

All which argues, these other Acts are necessary concur­rents to Justification, as well as such Faith; For it seems very unreasonable, that such Faith, when without the other (as ma­ny times it is) is effectless as to attaining Justification; and yet, when it is with them, they effectless, and it doing the whole; especially if the former Scriptures be reviewed using the same expressions of their concurrence to this effect, as they do of Faith.

7. Our Justification [ i. e. remission of Sin, and infusion of habitual Grace (which Infants also when baptized re­ceive as well as others) whereby we are made new creatures, and by the infusion of his Holy Spirit born of God, and his Seed remaining in us, and so made his Sons, and Heirs] be­ing thus attained upon our Faith, and the other foremen­tioned dispositions required in us. Next Catholicks grant: That the thus justified, not only have a right to, but may also attain the possession of eternal life, before, and without external good works issuing from such habitual or inherent Grace: or before any justification or merit by them. And that their works are not necessary to justification (the pro­ducing or continuing of it;) or to the obtaining the reward of it, eternal life, when either power, as in those who as yet have not the use of reason, or who are prevented by suddain death) or an occasion of such good works is want­ing; or also, when occasion being offered, yet the omission of such good works amount not to a mortal Sin; by which Sins only man falls from his former Justification. ξ.

But 8ly, They affirm, which is also allowed by Learned Protestants. π.

pgr;. Dr. Field, Append. to 3. l. 11. c. In Answer to Dr. Staple­ton's Words. ‘That Actions of Virtue, and careful endea­vour [Page 100]to walk in the Commandments of God, are not ne­cessary to our second Justification, or the augmentation, pro­gress, and dayly perfecting of the same more and more, is a Calumniation; for they [the Protestants] make the se­cond Justification to consist in two parts. 1st, The dayly well doing, whereby the righteousness inherent is more and more perfected: And 2ly, the dayly remission of such sinful defects, as are found in their actions.’ Dr. Fern, Answer to Scripture Mistaken, p. 92. ‘If they intend no more by se­cond Justification than is here expressed in the Trent Decree: viz. Renovation day by day, and yielding up our Members as Weapons of Righteousness to Sanctification, and increase in Righteousness; we have no cause to quarrel at the thing; but only that they will call that Justification, which indeed is Sanctification.’ Bishop Forbes de Justificat. 4. l. 6. c. Per­peram a Protestantibus rigidioribus rejicitur distinctio usitatissima justificationis in primam & secundam. Nam [praeter Justifica­tionem primam] necessario etiam agnoscenda, & admittenda est justificatio secunda, quae consistit in progressu, augmento, & com­plemento (pro statis vitae) justitiae primum donatae, & in remissi­one illorum delictorum, in quae quotidie justi incidunt. Confirming it there with several Protestant Authorities.

That this first Justification, thus attained before these good Works, is, in case of longer-life, both necessarily continued by good Works, or acts of inherent Grace either external or only internal, where is some impediment of the external, (so that he who commits a mortal Sin in omission of such works falls from his former Justification); and also is increased; or further degrees of Justification, or inhabitant Grace, or (as the Protestants had rather call it) Sanctification, received, or added, by the same good works; (for such acts external or internal do still increase the habit, or render the person more holy); whereby the already just is still made more just, (so Abraham, tho just before, yet was more highly justified by that Heroick act of the Oblation of his only Son, Jam. 2.): And the future reward also becomes greater to these good Works, according to our greater Justification by them. For if some more imperfect acts of Faith, of Repentance, Hope, Love, &c. done only by God's assistant Grace, did thro [Page 101]God's promise, and Christ's merits, procure our first Justifica­tion, and the consequents thereof; much more the same acts, and others the like, now more perfect, and proceeding from Grace inhabitant, do, thro the same promise and merits, con­fer on, or procure for, us a greater or (as some stile it) a se­cond Justification, viz. An improvement of our former justice, the remission of such Venial Sins as are still committed by the justified, and a richer eternal reward.

9. They affirm; That a man may fall away again from this state of Justification by incurring those greater Sins, either of Omission or Commission, which are for this cause, called commonly, Mortal; from which fall he is capable of restorement to a second Justification, or justified condition by the same means, as he attained the first; only if, instead of Baptisme not iterable, he make use of the Sacrament of. Pe­nance for his entrance into it, where-in concerning the just value and vertue of Penal Works, see below, Head XIX.

10. These are the Catholicks Positions concerning Justifi­cation, much tending to the promotion of pious endeavours, and an holy life; with whom also the more moderate Prote­stants, do in most, if not all, the former Points, concur. But meanwhile there are other Tenents of the more rigid Prote­stants on this subject (and several also of them broached, by the first Author of the Reformation, which brings a very great prejudice to it) that tend much to the relaxation of good manners, the breeding of false securities, and weakning mens endeavours in the prosecution of a good life: such as these ζ.

ζ. See the most rigid Protestants, maintaining the most of these Opinions, cited and censured by Bishop Forbes in his Considerationes aequae & placidae de Justificatione. And by Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Fundamentals, from the 11th to the 19th Chapter. And by Mr. Thorndike, Epilog. 2. l. from the 4th to the 10th Chapter.

1st. Their placing Justification only in the remission of Sin, and imputation to us of the righteousness of Christ; not in infusion of Grace, or renovation of life, making men fancy, here, that all their work is done for, and without them; none to be done in or by them. 2ly, In such remission of Sin, their [Page 102]making Justification, as it were one momentaneous act, and God at one and the same time remitting to us all our Sins past, present, and to come; which must needs produce afterward a very careless behaviour, both to committing and repent­ing of Sin. 3ly, In such imputation of Christ's Righteous­ness, their maintaining it in such a manner, not as if we were meritoriously justified, by the application of the effects of it to us, as if it had been our own; but formally justified by a translation of it, and investiture with it, in such a manner, as if it were inherent in us, and esteemed to be done by our selves. 4ly, From whence ariseth also a conceit; that all men by this righteousness (apprehended by their Faith) are equally justified: or all esteemed equally righteous in their Justification. 5ly, And so also, that all become equal in the future celestial reward, whether working much or work­ing little. 6ly, Their making the only instrument, or ne­cessary condition required in us for Justification, or remission of Sin, Faith alone (an easy act of the brain (as Dr. Ham­mond, Of Fundamentals, p. 116. observes) having nothing in it repugnant to our passions, and not any other good dispo­sition wrought in us by God's especial Grace; Repentance, purpose of a better Life, and this Faith too required of us for this purpose, not as any work, or duty, but only as an instrument or hand to apprehend, and apply Christ's merits to us, and to make his righteousness ours, &c. 7ly, Their ma­king this Faith that justifies us, a strong fiducia or full assu­rance that we are justified (or if you will that we shall be justified) only on those terms, if we firmly believe we shall be so. Which obliging men of what life soever, to believe they are, or shall be, justified, without looking after any re­quisite thereto, save only this full belief, renders those who continue still unreformed in their Manners, yet (by such strong fancy) secure of their Salvation; whilst none more than they extol the all-sufficiency of Christ's Righteousness; nor none so much as they do, or have reason to, diffide in, and dis-esteem their own. From which Tenent also it follows; that all those that are truly justified, are assured, or certainly know that they are justified; The ordinary effect of which Doctrine is, despair in some, who find in themselves no such [Page 103]assurance certain; presumption in others, who are fully assured without just cause. 8ly, Their holding that a justify­ing is only a true Faith; which breeds a great presumption in those for their being also justified persons, who do, and have no reason but to, take themselves for true believers; and who would even give their bodies to be burnt for any Ar­ticle of the Christian Faith (1. Cor. 13.3.) and yet do, or may want Charity; and so, Justification. 9ly, Their holding good works and the other dispositions, that always accompany a justified Faith to be necessary to our Justification, or Salva­tion, only as effects, and fruits, or also signs and assurances, to our selves, or others of this Faith; necessary for their pre­sence indeed; but not for their efficiency; as causa sine qua non, ad salutem non impediendum but not as instruments, or conditions required thereto as our Faith is: thus destroy­ing obedience it self, by taking away the chief motives that men have to it; and making them neglect any further pains-taking, for the production of those things, which they are taught do necessarily grow from Faith: or which serve only to justify them, not before God, but Men. 10ly; Their ex­pounding St. Paul, not only to exclude Works performed by strength of Nature, but done by Grace, from any way dispo­sing us, or concurring thereto: And St. James, only to speak of good Works, as declaring our Justification before men, not obtaining it with God. 11ly, Their affirming the Promises of the Gospel to be meerly gratuital (excepting for Faith), and not con­ditional upon Obedience, as those of the Law were, denying our Lord to be any Legislator; or denying Christian liberty to be so far obliged to the Obedience of the Law, as that any ac­count is had of our observing of it in any degree, as to obtain­ing, or improving, our Justification: And that Christians ought now, not as tied to it by God's Law, but spontaneously and freely, to do that Will of his, which was formerly made known to them by the Law. Which Obedience of our's, how little soever, (and upon such terms we may guess it will not be much) yet is accepted by God through the more per­fect Obedience of his Son, made ours by Faith. (See Calvin, Institutiones, 3. l. 19. c. 2.4. §.) And then we may guess what a poor harvest there will be of good Works where they [Page 104]are, thus only Free-will-offerings. 12ly, Their depressing the righteousness, and true worth, of good Works, flowing from Grace infused; and by this undervaluing the true Power of God's Grace given unto us; and so by this again incon­siderately, lessening the effects of Christ's merits also, as purchasing this infusion of Grace whereby to forbear sinning; as much as they seem to extol them, in the pardoning of us, whilst doing nothing but sinning; lessening also the same merits in the removing of Sin; whilst they make it in their Justification rather covered, than the strength and habit de­leted, and eradicated: misapplying Rom. ch. 7. 13ly, Their affirming, that the pretended restoring of the once justified and afterwards faln from Grace, to the State of Grace again, taught and used in the Church, is a thing meerly imaginary. (See Dr. Field, Append. 3. l. p. 312.) for that he who is once justified, can never be unjustified; and who are once assured of their Justification, are also assured of perseverance in it, happen afterwards what sin will happen. Which sins also (consequently) tho of the same kind must not be, in these per­sons, of the same guilt, as in others: i. e. losing the King­dome of Heaven; (1. Cor. 6.) and so these persons being indeed (though they perswade themselves otherwise) by such sins, faln from Grace. Now are the Keys of the Church, and those Sacraments, and such a measure of repentance, neglected, whereby they might have been restored; and so the last state of these men worse than the first [that before their justifica­tion]: and their end miserable, because too much conceited, and secure. These are the Tenents of some more rigid Pro­testants in the Point of Justification in opposition to the Ro­man Doctrines. In some of which, if perhaps, their mean­ing may, by a charitable construction, be reconciled to truth; yet do their expressions seem very pernicious to a good life; and easily misunderstood by the vulgar, or those who take them in the most obvious sense.

HEAD. XVI. Of Merit.

Of Merit.COncerning the Merits of Grace inhabitant, or of the good Works that proceed from it. 1. Catholicks do generally disclaim any merit of them, in such a sense, as the word Merit is explained by Protestants (See Field, Append. 3. l. p. 324. Forbes de Justifica. 5. l. 3. c. p. 197.) viz. First, Ut opus sit nostrum non ejus, a quo mercedem expectamus. 2ly, Ut sit in­debitum. 3ly, Ut nihil unquam faciendum omittatur, nec omit­tendum committatur, sive quoad partes, sive gradus. 4ly, Ut sit aequalitas inter opus & mercedem. Or yet as Merit is taken in the former Covenant of Works involving the first and third of these Conditions. They willingly granting; That as there are no works of our's done by Grace assistant, tho having some worth in them, that can merit our Justification; so neither any Works of the already justified, proceeding from Grace infused, and inhabitant, tho having yet a greater worth in them, that can merit the future divine reward pro­mised to them, as condigne; i. e. as any way, in strict justice, equalling it. α.

α. Bellarm. de Justific. 5. l. 14. c. Opera, bona si considerentur ex natura sua, remota promissione & dignitate principii operantis, nullam habent proportionem ad beatitudinem illam supernatura­lem: proinde non eis debetur ex justitia merces aeternae vitae; quo­ting Rom. 8.18. Luk. 19.17. Matt. 19.29. centuplum 2. Cor. 4.17. and in his using the Phrase ex condigno (for this reason, because their Works have not only a promise made to them of a reward, but also a dignity, by reason of the di­vine principle of them, God's Grace in us, that hath some correspondency, or similitude to the reward; as the Seed to the fruit; a lesser degree of Grace here, to a higher measure there-of here, and hereafter in the next world), yet he dis­claims any equality in a sense strictly taken; as most clearly [Page 106]appears in his answer to the Objection made against condig­nity; viz. the great inequality of our present Works (tho proceeding from Grace), and life eternal; especially, taken for the Object thereof: Deus merces nostra magna nimis; as also the inequality of the imperfect knowledge, and charity we have here, to that perfect, we shall receive for it here­after. To which he answers, Ibid. c. 18. Negari non potest, quin beatitudo longe excellat actioni meritoriae, cum in illa sit coguitio, & charitas perfecta, in ista vero sit cognitio, & charitas imperfecta. And, That, Non requiritur absoluta aequalitas in­ter meritum & praemium secundum justitiam distributivam; ut dici possit praemium ex condigno, etiam ex parte operis; sed suffi­cit, ut sit proportio quaedam, secundum quam is, qui meretur, dici possit dignus eo praemio. And, That,— Ideo dicimus ex con­digno deberi fidei formatae per charitatem visionem cum arden­tissima charitate; quia dignum est, ut res a Deo inchoata & dis­posita, tandem aliquando perficiatur & absolvatur. Granting also there, that God doth always, remunerare justorum opera supra condignum. This account, gives this Cardinal, of the Word Condignum. See the like in Scotus, 1. l. 17. d. 1. q. Praemium [speaking of aeterna beatitudo] est majus bonum merito; & justitia stricta non reddit melius pro minus bono; ideo bene dicitur quod Deus semper praemiat ultra meritum condig­num. See more Testimonies tending to this purpose below [ε.] and Head [...] Letters, χ. ρ. τ. υ. φ.

Or; Secondly. As nostra, or ex nobis; or 3ly, As indebita γ. 1. or 4ly, All of them, quoad partes, & gradus, perfect and free from faults (See Head XV. of Justification.) Further also conceding; that these good Works in order to that meriting, which is by Catholicks ascribed to them, do stand in need of the supply, or support, of the Merits of our Lord; and that in many several respects. 1st, Both for procuring the gift of that Grace to us, which in us procures or produceth these good Works, β. 2ly, And for procuring the Pact and Promise, which God hath made to them; without which whatsoever their worth had been, they could have claimed from God no such reward. 3ly, And for the remission of the imperfections and Venial Sins accompanying many of them; pardoned to us for Christ's, not their, Merit (see Head XV.) 4ly, And last­ly, [Page 107]For the exhibiting to God an Obedience which in its true worth equalizeth, or (if you will) exceeds the reward; for Catholicks affirm a meritorious cause, as of our Justification, so of our Glorification perfectly equalling life eternal, and the highest degrees thereof which any one receiveth; but this not in us, or our Works α; but in Christ; the effect of whose merits is dispenced to us for this end according to the mea­sure of these our Works; which (as the Council of Trent, Sess. 14.8. c.) Ex illo vim habent; ab illo offeruntur Patri; & per illum acceptantur a Patre. And Ibid. Can. 26. Justus pro bonis operibus expectat retributionem aeternam, per Christi merita. (See Vasq. 1.2. P. 214. c. 1, 2.) Catholicks there­fore affirm: 1. That, whatsoever worth there may be in the works of the Justified, yet since we are not sufficient of our selves to do, or think, any good thing as of our selves; but our sufficiency is of God; (See 2. Cor. 3.5. Jo. 15.5. —3.27. 1. Cor. 4.17. —12.16. Jam. 1.17. —2. Cor. 12.11. Gal. 6.3. Luk. 17.10.) His Grace in every thing first preventing us, and exciting us to them, and also necessarily helping us in every part of them, and mau's Will only assenting, and, as it it guided, co-operating with it; therefore this their worth is justly to be ascribed to God's Grace the first and principal agent herein, not to us ( nostra vu [...] esse merita, quae ipsius sunt dona. ( Conc. Trid. Sess. 6.16. c.) When therefore Catholicks any way advance the Dignity of such Works, they only extol God's Grace and Spirit within us, whilst others his Grace, and favour only without us; whilst others, the Works of Christ for us; they the Works of Christ also in us. β.

β. Conc. Trid. Sess. 6.16. c. Tanta est Domini erga omnes homines bonitas ut eorum velit esse merita, quae sunt ipsius dona. Bellarm. de Justifica. 1. l. 19. c. Operibus, quae fiunt ex gratia, id quod redditur non est simpliciter merces, sed etiam gratia, imo magis gratia, quam merces. To which purpose also St. Austin, Epist. 105. Etiam ipsa [vita aeterna] gratia nuncupatur non ob aliud, nisi quia gratis datur; nec ideo quia meritis non datur, sed quia data sunt & ipsa merita, quibus datur.

[Page 108] From whom, as his members and branches, we receive all our Virtue, as from our Root and Head: Nor we any more live, but Christ in us. β. Secondly, They grant, that whatever degree or worth, or condignity to a reward these good works should have, yet that they cannot merit or claim the least re­ward from God without the intervening, first of a pact, and his free promise of such reward: they cannot merit from him; because all things whatever by the right of Creation, and a­gain of our Redemption, are already his own and due to him. γ. 1.

γ. 1. F. Fisher in Bishop White, p. 517. ‘God might wholly require the good Works we do as his own [ i. e. without pay­ing the least reward to them] by many titles of Justice, being Works of his Servants: Of Religion, being Works of his Creatures: Of Gratitude, being Works of persons infinitly obliged to him [ viz. in our Preservation, Redemption, Sancti­fication, &c.’ Bellarm. de Justific. 5. l. 14. c. Cum simus om­nes conditione servi & mancipia Dei, non potest esse justitia inter nos & Deum, nisi ipse libera conventione operibus nostris alioqui debitis, etiamsi nulla merces illis reddenda esset, praemium con­stituere voluisset. Quoting there Luk. 17. Cum feceritis haec omnia, dicite, servi inutiles sumus. And St. Bernard: Totum ergo quod es, illi debes, [...]quo totum habes. Applying this debi­tum to our good Works universally, not only those acts of Christian Virtues that are sub praecepto, in omitting which in just time and place we sin, and are made liable to punishment; but also those higher and intense acts of the same Virtues that are sub consilio recommended to us by our Lord, not command­ed: or commanded for the attaining of perfection, but not for our not incurring sin, or punishment in disobeying them. Quae observata majus habent praemium, non observata nullam ha­bent paenam. (De Monach. 2. l. 7. c.) for which see De Mo­nach. 2. l. 13. c. Potuit Deus a nobis exigere quicquid possu­mus, non tamen voluit. Nunquam potest homo facere plus quam debet, immo etiam nec quantum debet, si consideremus beneficia Dei nobis collata; & tamen possumus facere plus quam debemus, si consideremus Legem nobis impositam [ i. e. such Law, in not observing which we are held guilty of Sin] & perinde possu­mus facere plus, quam revera facere teneamur.

[Page 109] And particularly, the whole worth of these good Works from his special Grace. Nor 2ly, can they claim, were they none of his already, any such reward from him; because no­thing from its meer worth can oblige another to purchase or reward it, or give to the owner thereof its just price, unless some bargain or obligation hath preceded. γ. 2.

γ. 2. Bellarm. de Justific. 5. l. 14. c. Neque enim opus aequale mercedi potest vel ex justitia commutativa, vel distributi­tiva, praesertim, ubi quis propria bona distribuit, alterum obli­gare, nisi conventio & pactum ante praecesserit.

3ly, Catholicks affirm; That man, in his Justification be­ing now regenerated, and made a new Creature, and a par­taker of the Divine Nature, born of God, and his Seed a­biding in him; receiving as a true Member of Christ, a con­tinual, celestial Virtue, and influence from this Head; and as a branch the juice of this Vine; receiving the Signature, the earnest and first fruits of that Holy Spirit now presently, of which he shall have the more plentiful harvest hereafter; which Spirit in him already a fountain of living water spring­ing unto life eternal; (See 2. Cor. 5.17. —2. Pet. 1.4. Jo. 1.13. —15.5. —2. Cor. 1.22. —5.5. Eph. 1.14. Rom. 8.23. Eph. 4.3. Jo. 4.14.) Catholicks, I say, affirm, that this Seed of God in him, and its fruits, good Works, which God works in him ( Phil. 2.13. Heb. 13.21.) must needs have a certain divine and supernatural goodness, worth, and dignity in them, well pleasing, and of a sweet smelling savour to God; and the persons doing them children of light, truly beloved of, and most acceptable and dear to, him, as now his Sons, and bearing his own image; ( Phil. 4.18. Eph. 5.8. Col. 3.10.) and these their actions just, pure, lovely, praise-worthy ( Phil. 4.8.) done to God's glory (1. Cor. 10.3.) resembling and like unto his. Sanctificantes se, sicut & ille Sanctus est, (1. Jo. 3.) & imitatores Dei ut filii Charissimi, ( Eph. 5.1.) δ.

δ. Acknowledged also by sober Protestants. Bishop White against Fisher, p. 170. ‘The Works of the Regenerate are truly good, because they proceed from the Holy Ghost; good in regard of their object, form, efficient, and end, Psal. [Page 110]118.167. Gal. 5.22. Phil. 2.13. —1. Cor. 10.31.’ They are ‘good Fruits opposed to evil Fruits, Matt. 7.17. Works of Light opposed to Works of Darkness, Eph. 5.9. a spiritual Sacrifice, acceptable to God, Phil. 4.18. And the same are truly good comparatione Scelerum; not comparatively only, but Regula Virtutum, according to the Rule of Virtue.’ August. c. 2. Ep. Pelag. Lib. 4. c. 10. and p. 174. ‘There is in all good Works a dignity of Grace, Divine similitude, goodness, and honour, Phil. 4.8.’

4ly, Affirm also, this worth of the actions of the Regenerate, after Justification, much different from, and transcendent to, that worth, which is in the former dispositions precedent to Justification; done indeed by the external help of God's Grace, but before the transfusion into us of his Spirit. But this al­ways to be remembred; that no worth of the one, or the o­ther, is from our selves, as of our selves; but the worth of them is from God. They affirm, accordingly, that there is in these Works of the justified, proceeding in us from this Divine Principle, a worth and similitude some way propor­tionable, and corresponding to the reward promised to them; in respect of which worth, Life eternal, and the beatifical Vision of God, and all the consequences thereof, are called the Wages, and Stipend, Reward, Prize, and Crown, of these Works; Matt. 5.12. Apoc. 22.12. Matt. 20.8. —2. Tim. 4.8. Apoc. 2.10. —1. Cor. 9.24, 25. And they said truly to merit such reward, according to the sense of the word Merit used by the Fathers, and the word Dignity used in the Scriptures. (a chief portion of which reward, as a greater measure of God's Spirit; and Charity, and Sanctification in the most in­tense degree, received in the next world; and the augmen­tations of Grace daily received in this, are only higher de­grees of the same kind, and nature, with that, of which they are the reward.) And God also is said to give such rewards to these, ex justitia; & quia digni sunt, ( Apoc. 3, 4. —2. Thess. 1.5. Heb. 6.10. —2. Tim. 4.8.) not only in this respect that God is just and faithful in keeping his promise, once made, tho to a Service of little or no worth at all; but in respect of some valuable goodness, and worth (tho this from God) also in the condition it self, to which he makes the promise of [Page 111]such reward. They rationally affirm also, that whatever benefit any ones Sanctity or good Works may be said; by way of impetration, to procure from God for others, they may be said also to have the same power with God for themselves, when by relapse into sin, or falling into any necessity or misery themselves are in the same condition as such others; and when their ingratitude, and affront and contempt of former Grace &c. doth not aggravate their offence and fall beyond that of others. See 2. Chron. 9.3. Nehem. 13, 14.22.31.

5ly, Yet this worth of the Righteousness, or works of the justified, whatever it it be, as it hath its original not from us, but from God, and is also, without any purchase thereof, wholly due to him, from us his Creatures and Vassals; so is it not affirmed to ascend so high, as any way to equal those re­wards promised to it, but to be far inferior, and God ever to reward beyond any such Merit. ( Matt. 25.22. —2. Cor. 4.17.) For whereas our good Works momentary are not only said to merit Life eternal, but also to merit those higher measures of the Holy Spirit, and degrees of Sanctification, that shall be conferred on us there, as also the the increase of Grace, in this life; here it is manifest, that the lesser degree (the Merit); and the greater, (the reward) cannot be equalled in their worth. Some proportion, some similitude there is be­tween this Seed the justified sow here, and the Fruits thereof they reap hereafter, sufficient to support the Phrase (especi­ally after the intervening of a Pact) of the one meriting, or being worthy of the other; but not to maintain in commu­tative justice, one of equal value, or worth, to the other α. This we have title to by Christ's Merits only, not our Works; to the which Merits also we owe, that we have these Works; therefore the Council of Trent, that admits meritum bonorum operum ex pacto, and so ex justitia &c, yet waves the expressi­on ex condigno, as liable to Mistakes. ε.

ε. Bellarm. de Justificat. 5. l. 16. c. Catholici omnes ag­noscunt opera bona justorum esse meritoria vitae aeternae, sed tamen aliqui censent non esse utendum his vocibus, de condigno, & de congruo; sed absolute dicendum, opera bona justorum esse meri­toria vitae aeternae, ex gratia Dei.

[Page 112] Bishop White, Answer to Fisher, p. 172. (and the same p. 512.) ‘The Opinion of Modern Papists (saith he) con­cerning the Merit of Condignity was always opposed by Pon­tificians themselves, Scotus, Durand, Marsilius, Dionysius, Cisterciensis, Gregory Ariminen, Thomas Walden, Paulus Bur­gensis, Joh. Ferus, Eckius, Pighius, &c. [and see many more later added by Bishop Forbes de Justificat, 5. l. 4. c. which I mention here to shew a liberty of Opinion herein left to her Subjects by the Roman Church:] and many, who propugne 'the Doctrine of Merit of Condignity, speak improperly.’ Thus Bishop White. Mr. Thorndike, Epilog. 2. l. 33. c. p. 308. ‘As it cannot be denied that the Church of Rome allows this Doctrine of Merit [he means of Condignity] to be taught; yet can it not be said to enjoyn it: Because there have not wanted to this day Doctors of esteem that have always held otherwise. Again, They who only acknowledge Meritum congrui in Works done in the state of Grace ( i. e. that it is fit for God to reward them with his Kingdome) say no more, than that it was fit for God to promise such a reward; which who so denieth must say, that God hath promised that which was unfit for him to promise. And if the Dignity of our Works in respect of the reward, may have this tolerable sense, because God daigns and vouchsafes it [such reward] the Council of Trent, which hath enacted no reason why they are to be counted Merits, can neither bear out these high Opinions, [he means maintained by some of the Roman Authors] nor be said to prejudice the Faith in this point.’ Again, ‘That which necessarily comes in consideration with God, in the bestowing the reward (which the condition he contracted for, must necessarily do) tho it cannot have the nature of Merit [ i. e. taken in a Protestant sense] (because the Covenant it self is granted meerly of Grace in considera­tion of Christ's death), yet it is of necessity to be reduced to the nature and kind of the Meritorious Cause. Nor can the Glory of God, or the Merit of Christ, be obscured by any consideration of our Works, that is grounded upon the Merit of our Lord Christ, and expresseth the tincture of his Blood; [as all the Roman Merit professedly doth.]’

[Page 113] And so do many Roman Authors, both before, and since the Council. And also most of those other that use this Phrase, to signify some true worth in these Works, as before ex­plained. Thes. 3, 4. yet so qualify it, as that it can offend no rational Protestant.

6ly, That therefore, first, he who conceits, any good works of the justified are, or may be such, as may challenge from God's justice life eternal, save only upon his free and gracious promise, made to them; or at least in commutative justice, do deserve it, from any worth in them, that equals it; and, for both these doth not always depend only on the Merits of Christ, is held by Catholicks to err from Truth; and to be guilty of a most false presumption. 2ly, For the true con­currence, that good Works have by Christ's Merits thro God's free promise, for obtaining or meriting life eternal; here also, as every one ought in general to believe most certainly, and infallibly, that all who perform such Evangelical Obedience, shall obtain life Eternal: So they affirm; 1st, That none is obliged to believe specially, that his own Works, or Obedi­ence is such, as cannot miss of it; or that if he have not a full perswasion of the merit of his own Works, or of his own Justi­fication, or Salvation, or of the particular application of Christ's Merits to himself, he cannot be justified, or saved, or par­take of his Merits. 2ly, That by reason of the liableness of the once justified by, or in, their Baptisme to fall away again, by committing Mortal Sin, from their Justification: and then the difficulty of discerning exactly among their Sins commit­ted, what are Mortal and losing the Divine Grace, what are not: then again, by reason of the difficulty of knowing in our regaining a second Justification, when we have a sufficient re­pentance, or sorrow, and contrition for our former Sins (with­out which the Churches Sacraments do not profit us, and a different measure of which is required according to the great­ness of our fault) and when we have not: And 3ly, by reason, If we were ascertained of our regained estate; of the great allay, and impairment which our actions, in this estate, may receive from the mixture of many Venial sins; so that our faults do many times equal, sometimes exceed, our good deeds; nay sometimes that which we think a good act, is no [Page 114]better than a true, tho Venial, Sin; and is augmented also in our presumption that it is none: By reason also of the diffi­culty to distinguish between Evangelical Counsels, and Pre­cepts; in respect of which, a different observance is required, under penalty of falling into some Mortal Sin, or only failing of Perfection: And lastly, by reason of the uncertainty of our perseverance, and that our present Merits or Piety may not be all evacuated by some future miscarriages: I say by reason of all these, Catholicks affirm it the safest course, espe­cially for those who have not attained to any great perfection, not to put any, or much, least it should happen to be a mi­staken, confidence in any merit, or sufficiency of their own present works to those ends, for which God requireth them of us. But rather wholly to trust in, and rely on, God's mer­cy, both for our present condition; that, if it be not safe, he will, through Christ's Merits, by improving our Faith, and Repentance, change and amend it; and for our present acti­ons; when we are in a safe condition; that if they be full of defects and miscarriages, he will for Christ's Merits, remit these, and for the future more sanctify them, and give us also perseverance in them. We ever remembring that of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 4.4. Nihil mihi conscius sum, sed non in hoc justificatus sum, qui autem judicat me, Dominus est. Of which matter thus the Council of Trent, Sess. 6. c. 9. Sicut nemo pius de Dei misericordia, Christi Meritis, Sacramentorum virtute, & efficacia, dubitare potest: Sic quilibet, dum seipsum suamque propriam infirmitatem & indispositionem respicit, de sua gratia [ i. e. of his Regeneration] formidare, & timere potest. 7ly, Yet lastly, they grant; That such justified, as are eminent in Sanctity, both may have by special revelation (which God sometimes condescending to a great familiarity com­municates unto them) an infallible certainty of their present justification, and (if persevering) Salvation; and may also without such revelation, tho not attain any infalli­ble certainty or perswasion, cui non potest sub-esse falsum, by reason of the possible defect of their judgment about some of the aforenamed particulars (upon which therefore can never be built any Divine Faith; the object of which is only Divine Revelation, and therefore that only which is abso­lutely [Page 115]infallible), yet have a strong and moral-certain per­swasion, or faith, cui non sub-est dubium, or dubitatio; may have a fearless and calm security, that they are actually justi­fied, and consequently (if persevering) shall be glorified. Which is called the Testimony of a good Conscience, ground­ed on their present Obedience, as the condition and service required of them, for rendring them capable, of such a re­ward, and of Christ's most perfect obedience the adequate me­ritorious cause thereof. (See 2. Cor. 1.12. —1. Jo. 3.18, 19, 20. &c. 24.4.17. —2. Pet. 1.10. —2. Tim. 4.7, 8.) To which Testimony of a good Conscience is added also the witness within them of the Holy Spirit, Rom. 8.15. tho this witness (as also its other ordinary operations in us) most-what is not certainly known by us to be its witness or operation; for, if it were so, this would amount to special revelation. Ca­tholicks therefore affirm not, a particular application of Christ's Merits to themselves, or a confidence of their own Salvation, in any justified, to be unlawful; but only an in­fallible certainty of these to be (except by revelation) unat­tainable: and whilst they say; that one, tho in the state of Justification, de sua gratia formidare & timere potest; yet they say not, that every one timere debet. ξ.

ξ. See the Roman Writers quoted to this purpose by Dr. Field, Append. 3. l. p. 318. &c. And by Bishop Forbes de Justificat. 3. l. 1. c. p. 95. &c. Where, — Communior Roma­nensium sententia (saith he) libenter admittit ex vivae fidei sensu, seu charitatis & bonorum operum experimento, certitu­dinem aliquam minoris & inferioris gradus oriri, quae conjectu­ralis & probabilis nominari potest; & quae, licet non omnem for­midinem pellat, tamen tollit omnem anxietatem & haesitationem. Progrediuntur alii quidam Romani ulterius, & certitudinem ali­quam aliam, minorem quidem certitudine fidei divinae, Conjectu­rali tamen majorem, quam certitudinem moralem appellandam censent, admittunt. Ita ut nullam habeant de sua justificatione formidinem deceptionis.

The Pharisee very confident Luk. 18.11. went home un­justified; the Publican very fearful, justified; and so the Leper believing Christ's Power, but doubting his good Pleasure, (si vis, potes) yet was cleansed, Matt. 8.2.

HEAD. XVII. Concerning Sin Venial and Mortal.

Concerning Sin Venial and Mortal.THE Catholick Doctrine is. 1. That all the Baptized are truely Regenerate. 2. That a Man falls not from this state of Regeneration, or from God's Grace, and favour by committing any Sin, how small soever; nor yet continues still in this State whilst committing any Sin how great soever. But 3ly, that there are some greater crimes, and offences a­gainst God, which are inconsistent with, and destructive of, the State of Grace; which do so break God's Commandments, as that (if not worthily repented of) they make us actually liable to eternal Damnation; after the committing of which (expelling us from the Grace and Priviledges of our Baptisme) we cannot be reconciled to God, nor restored to our former condition, without the help of the Keys of the Church (where­ever this may be had.) Lastly, from which Sins by the Grace of God the Regenerate Person may totally abstain and totally reform his life, and in respect of them may, through his whole life, perfectly observe all God's Commandments. 4ly, That there are other lesser Sins, which are well consistent with the State of Regeneration. From committing of which (one or other of them) no man, tho Regenerate (abstracting from God's special Priviledge) can for any long time live free; nor in respect of these can be said perfectly to observe God's Commandments. Bellarm. de amiss Gratiae upon Matt. 5.22. Si quis leviter irascitur [which he calls a Venial Sin] is jam recedit a perfecta observatione legis. Si quis autem manifestum convitium in proximum jactat, is demum non a perfecta observa­tione, sed simpliciter ab observatione legis recedit. Which Sins, however they do, or do not, offend against God's Laws; or also, in their nature, do, or do not merit eternal punishments, yet all agree on this, that no Regenerate person at all by committing them, doth actually fall from God's favour, or his former righteousness; nor actually incur external punish­ments; [Page 117]and that the Regenerate, committing them, have al­ways at least an habitual repentance of them.

HEAD. XVIII. Of Works commonly called of Supererogation.

Counsels E­vangelical, or Works of Supereroga­tion.COncerning Evangelical Counsels, or Precepts of Per­fection, and the Observance of them, called Works of Supererogation. 1. Catholicks disclaim any such Works, taken in such a sense, as Protestants explain, and impose on them. viz. That all things be performed, and fulfilled, that the Divine Law commandeth [ i. e. in living free as well from all those called Venial, as from Mortal, Sins. α

α. Bishop White, Answer to Fisher, p. 522. ‘To the De­finition, and being, of Works of Supererogation Two things are required. First, That all be performed and fulfilled, which the Divine Law commandeth [he meaneth without any Sin at all incurred Venial or Mortal. See p. 525. but if, without Mortal Sin, and such as excludes from Grace, were only meant by this Bishop; so, he must grant; That all persons, whilst in the State of Grace, do thus fulfil God's commands.’ He goes on.] But if just men have any Sin, they perform not all which the Divine Law requireth. Again, p. 527. ‘Supererogation implies these things. 1st, A per­fect and exact performance of all commanded Duties, with­out omission of any, &c. But (saith he) supposing the per­fection of the Divine Law, and presupposing all men to be Sinners in part [ i. e. as to Sins Venial] the former is im­possible.’ So Perkins, Demonstrat. Problem. p. 117. Of the Fathers. Volunt Supererogationem fieri, non quod officium ali­quod praestari possit ultra legem moralem integram, [as now the Papists hold] sed quod fit, 1{suo} Ultra negativam partem: ut non furari, &c. 2{suo} Ultra actus externos. 3{suo} Unum aliquod man­datum. 4{suo} Ultra mandatum caeteris hominibus commune. Bi­shop Andrews, Resp. ad Apol. 8. c. p. 196. Quis nescit fieri a nobis multa libere? & quae a Deo non sunt imperata, voveri, & [Page 119]reddi? In hoc tamen Supererogandi vis tota non est. Erogare prius oportet summam integram, quae imperata est nobis; Erogare quicquid debitum a nobis; Id, ubi jam factum, tum, & ultra illud, amplius quid, Supererogare. Peccavit in praecepta quis; quae debuit facere, non fecit; sed votivum nescio quid vel volun­tarium praestitit: Hoc jampraeter erogare est forte; non super. Where his Answerer ( Discovery of Dr. Andrews Absurdities, p. 363.) long ago observed; ‘That he would have Works of Supererogation to be such good works only, as are done after the Precepts are fulfilled, or fully observed; and so quite changed the question, as it is stated by Catholicks.’

And 2ly, beyond this; That something more be perform­ed by us, than is any way due to God from us. β.

β. See the Reason given in the Fourteenth Article of the Church of England, why the Doctrine of Works of Su­pererogation is arrogant and impious: For (saith the Article) ‘by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do;’ [ i. e. absolutely in respect of all the Divine Precepts] but that they do more 'for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: Whereas Christ saith plainly: When ye have done all that are com­manded you, say, We are unprofitable Servants. Vossius Thes. de bonis Operibus, Quest. 3. Thes. 1, 2. Cum nemo, in hac in­firmitate vitae, praestet ea quae debet, impia est eorum sententia, qui plus aiunt proestare, quam debet. Refellit hoc etiam Christus apud Lucam 17.9, 10. Bishop White's Answer to Fisher, p. 526. out of St. Bernard. ‘By the obligation of Gratitude we owe to the Almighty omne quod sumus & possumus &c.’

And 3ly, (As some Protestants add.) γ.

γ. Dr. Hammond (Of Will-worship, §. 52.) vindicating himself, in the holding Evangelical Counsels, yet from main­taining works of Supererogation. ‘The Romanists (saith he) mean by Supererogating; that, after having sinned, and so become debtors to God, they have paid that debt by satis­faction; i. e. done something else, which may satisfy God for their former sins. Which satisfaction, they say, they may perform so far, as not only to satisfy for their own Sins; [Page 120]but also to do more than so; help, towards the raising of a bank or treasure, for others also.’ Reiterated also in his Answer to Cawdry, p. 225.

That they be such works as are satisfactory, for our own, or also other mens, Sins, and Disobedience; and that are also laid up in the Church's Treasure for this purpose. Catho­licks freely granting. 1st. That none can perfectly fulfil the Law, not only without the mixture of some imperfection, but also without the intervening of several venial or lesser sins frequently happening (See Head, Justifica. (ξ.) (γ.) But yet these sins or deficiencies not such, as cast us out of God's friendship, or the state of Grace; or as can hinder us from the greater reward in our observing of Counsels, any more, than they do from that lesser reward in our observing Precepts; From which Venial Sins also David, when yet he is said to have loved God toto corde, was not free. 2ly, Grant­ing also, That none can perform any work at all, that is not by many titles a due debt to the Divine Majesty (of which see before Head XVI. γ. 1.): yet not a debt exacted by him un­der pain of sin, or loss of heaven to those who do not pay it. 3ly, Granting that these works are no way satisfactory for any ones Sin, or the eternal punishment thereof; nor yet of the temporal, but by application of Christ's Satisfactions; nor again these Works of Supererogation, and observance of the Counsels satisfactory in any other manner, than other works, that are observances of the Precepts, are also affirmed to be; nor is this [that there is any Treasure of the Church, part­ly at least made up of these] maintained to be any part of the Roman Faith: Concerning all which peruse the ensuing Head concerning Satisfaction.

But notwithstanding these Concessions, 1st, Catholicks (wherein Learned Protestants joyn with them) δ.

δ. Mountague in his Appeal, Licensed by Bishop White, p. 214. ‘I know no Doctrine of our English Church against Evangelical Counsels. I do believe there are, and ever were, Evangelical Counsels; such as St. Paul mentioneth in his Consilium autem do; such, as our Saviour pointed at, and di­rected unto, in his, Qui potest capere, capiat; such, as a man [Page 121]may do, or not do, without guilt of sin, or breach of Law [therefore are these no particular Precepts, obligatory to some, which have received from God such a particular gift;’ for then all that are so gifted would sin in omitting them; all not so gifted in doing them; and they would be Counsels to none at all. Nor would there be any place in them for St. Paul's doing well in the one, but better in the other.] Again, p. 216. (out of St. Nazianzen.) ‘We have Laws that do bind of necessity; others that be left to our free choice to keep them, or not; so as, if we keep them, we shall be re­warded; if we keep them not, no fear of punishment.’ And, out of St. Chrysostome. ‘A man may do more than is com­manded [ i. e. not as to fulfilling the whole Law, with free­dome from all Venial Sin;’ but as to some particular Precept thereof, with freedome from transgressing it either by Mor­tal Sin at all, or Venial Sin for some time.] Again, p. 215. and p. 218. ‘The Doctrine of Antiquity, with universal consent, held Evangelical Counsels.’ —Name but one Writer in all Antiquity of a contrary mind to this; There are Evan­gelical Counsels. Bishop White, Answer to Fisher, p. 522. 'God Almighty doth not rigorously, (or as simply necessary to Salvation) [therefore not under pain of sinning, or such sin­ning at least; as excludes any from Salvation] exact of his ‘Saints and Servants, that in every particular work in his service, they do the uttermost of their force, &c.’ Again, p. 527. He grants men may do more than God hath command­ed by his Law as simply necessary to Salvation; to wit, 'They who give all their Goods to the Poor, &c. Again, p. 527. He allows Counsels; i. e. free-will offerings, or spontaneous actions, exceeding that which the ordinary bond of necessary duty obligeth men unto; and which are acceptable unto God in respect of their end. Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Will Worship, §. 41. ‘Every man is not bound, under pain of Sin, to be prudent, or pious, or merciful, in such a degree; I may give so much as will denominate me merciful; and pray so often as to denominate me pious; and yet be capable of grow­ing in each of these Graces. And §. 47. That ordinary saying; 'That every one is bound to do that which is best, it is most discernably false (and that which a world of falsi­ties [Page 122]are builton) which to prove I shall need no further testi­mony, than that of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 7.38.’ He that giv­eth in Marriage doth well, and he that giveth not doth better. ‘If all were bound to do that which is best, that which were only good, were evil, for so is that, whatever it is, which comes short of what we are bound to do.’ Ibid. in his An­swer to Cawdry, p. 192. ‘The Macedonians (saith he) are an instance of doing more in this kind, than either all men, at all times, or they at this time were obliged to have done: And see before, p. 184.’ His instancing in St. Paul's taking no hire from the Corinthians for his preaching. Ibid. p. 195. ‘He that observes the duty in any degree of the Latitude doth well, and he that goes yet further, but not beyond the Lati­tude, doth better.’ [Why better, but because he doth more than the other; and more than the command requires under sin?] Again, p. 224. ‘If every regular act of Obe­dience, which comes short of the highest degree of per­fection, is a sin, than every act of Virtue in this life, is a sin; for the fullest perfection, which cannot be in­creased, is not to be found in any man in this life.’ And p. 229. he saith. ‘That such persons may expect from our great [...] more and greater acceptance [I shall add, re­ward also] than the same person could in reason expect for doing only what is commanded. And of two men, which have been equal in obedience, one exceeding the other, in acts of uncommanded perfection, the more perfect shall have the richest reward.’ In all which he saith plainly enough, that a man may do more than is commanded, as to some par­ticular commands; praying; giving Alms; and that without sinning in such act; or simning either Mortally, or Venially, against such Precept, at another time; tho he de­nies this not sinning §. 51. in respect of all commands what­soever; i. e. our never sinning against any of them; where if he mean venially, so saith the Roman Church with him.

Mr. Thorndike in Epilog. 2. l. 32. c. p. 296. &c. Justifies the Counsels of Continency, of abandoning riches to which one hath just title: and St. Austin's Comment upon St. Paul's forbearing his dues for Preaching. Potuit S. Paulus ex even­gelio victum sibi quaerere: quod muluit operuri, amplius erogabut. [Page 123]Ibid. p. 208. Nay further justifies Vows made in these Kinds, and a Monastick Life in the observance of them, See l. 3. c. 31. p. 368.371. And of these Counsels he saith, p. 298, ‘That the observance of them obligeth God in point of goodness, tho not in point of promise [he means promise annexed to a command.]’ And, ‘That, tho the love of God, for which they do these things, is commanded, yet that they are not commanded to exercise that love in doing these things.’

Maintain; that there are several such Counsels, or Precepts of perfection, in Scripture, which are not Precepts of necessa­ry Obedience; and which, being observed, are graciously accepted, and highlier rewarded; but not observed, bring on us no guilt of sin, or liability to punishment; lastly, in doing which we do more than is commanded; viz. in that particu­lar matter, concerning which the Counsel is; and which are free-will-offerings and indebita, i. e. upon any Law ex­acting them so of us, as that, in the omission of them, we are held transgressors of it; i. e. Sinners. For tho God, whose are we and all ours, might justly require these works also under such penalties: yet such is his indulgence, that he calls not for all his dues from us on such terms, nor ties us in every thing, under the pain of sinning, or incurring his dis­pleasure, to do our best: for, then, he, that did not his best, could not possibly do well, nor any one better than well: contrary to the Apostle, 1. Cor. 7.38. and whoever can be any whit better, should be yet bad. Such works in Consilio are the highest degrees in the acts of Christian Virtues, or Duties; which Virtues consist not in an indivisible point, but have a certain Latitude, as there must be some lowest degree, as to time how often, or quantity how much, farther than which he, that descends, sinneth against the Precept, so are there certain higher degrees, as to time, place, or quantity, &c. which for encouraging our best endeavours, are by the Divine Wisdome, allowed, commended, or (if you will) required, upon the title of perfection. Lastly, which are highly rewarded; but out of his mercy to our weakness, not strictly commanded upon the forfeiture of our being any longer good, or virtuous; nor the omission of them punished. 2ly, That hence clearly appears a degree of perfection in the [Page 124]observance of the Counsel always transcending that of ob­serving the Precept, to which such Counsel relates: because these (such as are called Supererogatory) are always the more intensive and heroical acts of the same Virtues, or Duties. ε.

ε. Bellarm. De Monach. 2. l. 7. c. Consilium includit prae­ceptum, & aliquid supra praeceptum addit.

So there is a higher degree of perfection (caeteris paribus) i. e. as to good intentions, and the improvements made by the external acts on the inward habits, and our keeping still with­in the latitude of the Virtue supposed a like in both; in di­stributing the fifth, than only the tenth part of our increase or goods, in alms to the poor; or giving dayly what another doth weekly; in praying seven times, than twice, a day, or with greater fervour than is that least degree thereof, which may be performed without sinning; In an entire fasting, than temperate eating; and in a total abstinence from, than a moderate use of, delicate meats; or fasting four times, than only twice a week; in a virginal than a conjugal Chastity; preaching for nothing (whereby the more to advance the Gospel) than for wages; preaching once a day, (i. e. caeteris paribus) than once a week. And it were not reasonable, nor yet sense to say: That these Counsels, or higher, and more excellent, degrees of Christian Virtues, that are in Consilio, are the means only whereby we may more easily attain to the observance of that inferior practice of the same Virtue, that is sub Praecepto, and under penalty of sinning, if not obeyed; or to say that our perfection lies in performing such precept, and not the Counsel; or that the Precept of the two is more highly rewardable; for that is to say; the less doing the more perfect, and the more rewardable, or rewarded. 3ly, Catho­licks affirm; That there is no Precept at at all ( i. e. taken in the former sense, as requiring obedience under penalty of sinning) but that there is some Counsel that transcends it; or, But that the superior degrees of the practice of it are in Con­silio; and this, as maintained by Catholicks, so also is conceded by Learned Protestants. ζ

[Page 125] Bellarm. 2. l. 13. c. Ex toto corde, non significant omnes actus cordis, vel omnem intentionem possibilem; ita ut impere­tur, ut nihil corde agamus, nisi Daum diligere, idque summa vehementia amoris, sed solum ut amemus Deum praecipuo amore, nihilque illi amore anteponamus, velaequemus.

St. Thomas 2.2. q. 184. art. 3. ad 2 ^nm. Transgressionem praecepti evadit, qui quocunque modo perfectionem divinae de­lectionis attingit. Est autem infimus [perfectae] divinae de­lectionis gradus ut nihil supra eum, aut contra eum, aut aequali­ter ei, diligatur, a quo gradu perfectionis qui deficit, nullo modo implet praeceptum. Bishop White, p. 523. ‘We maintain not, that this Precept obligeth man at all times to an actual em­ployment of all his powers, and forces thereof on God, with­out conversion to other lawful Objects.’ Dr. Hammond of Will-worship, §. 49. ‘ With all thy heart denoteth two things only; 1st, Sincerity of this love of God, as opposed to par­tial divided love, or service; 2ly, The loving him above all other things, and not admitting any thing into competition with him; not loving any thing else in such a degree; and in neither of these respects excluding all other things from a subordinate place in our love: which being supposed, it will be easy to discern, that this sincere love of God above all is capable of degrees; and that it is very possible for two men to love God with all their hearts, i. e. sincerely and above all other things, and so both to obey that Precept; and yet one to love him in a more intense degree, than the other doth. Which may be observed among the Angels them­selves, &c.’ And he in his Answer to Cawdry, p. 214. re­turns this answer to St. Austin's Saying, Ep. 29. Quamdiu augeri potest [virtus aut charitas] profecto illud, quod minus est quam debet, ex vitio est; Urged by Cawdry, by Bishop White, and usually by other Protestants. ‘That the Father means not that every regular act of Obedience, which comes short of the highest degree of perfection is a sin; for so (saith he) every act of Virtue in this life will be a Sin, since any may be increased. And St. Austine sufficiently clears himself from such a sense elsewhere ( De Spiritu & Lit. cap. ult.) in saying, — Neque enim, si nondum esse potest tanta dilectio Dei quanta illi cognitioni plenae, perfectaeque debetur, jam culpae depu­tandum [Page 126]est;] but that in some particulars, or others, still there is in some part, in this life, a failing of our duty; not only some defect in our Virtue, but also from it.]’

St. Thomas 2, 2. q. 184. art. 3. speaks thus in answer to the Argument. Ad observationem praeceptorum omnes tenentur, cum sit de necessitate salutis; & igitur perfectio Christianae vitae non consistit in praeceptis, quia omnes ad perfectionem non tenen­tur. That, — Non est transgressor praecepti [perfectae dilectio­nis] qui non attingit ad medios perfectionis gradus, dummodo at­tingit ad infimum. [Which lower degree every justified per­son must be possessed of before performing Counsels.] Est au­tem (saith he) alia perfectio charitatis [ i. e. the higher de­grees of it, that transcend the Precept] ad quam aliquis per aliquid spirituale augmentum pervenit [ i. e. by practising and using the advantage of Counsels] ut puta, cum homo etiam a rebus licitis abstineat, ut liberius divinis Obsequiis Vacet.

So the very highest Degree, that of perfect Dilection [Dili­ges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde & totis viribus] doth not command, under pain of sinning, and punishment, an entire employment of all our powers, thoughts and affections on God, wholly, perpetually; nor that we never love, de­sire or think on any thing besides him (Protestants assenting); but only such a sincerity of our love, ut nihil supra eum, aequali­ter ei diligatur; Beyond which there may be yet a more in­tense dilection of him in Consilio, and most acceptable to God, to which we stand upon no such penalty obliged. ζ. ( p. 125.) Neither can Zachary and Elizabeth, who walked in all the Commandments of the Law blameless, and so observed this Precept amongst others, be imagined to have always exercised the same intensive act of love, or the one an act always ex­actly equal in degree to that of the other.

4ly, In comparing Counsels and Precepts; or some Coun­sels with others, it is granted that the practice of some, may be the means or instruments of the acquiring of the other; or of any higher perfection therein; or also of the preservation of them acquired; in respect of which (as the means com­pared with the end) there Counsel may be esteemed inferior to the Precept. So by exercising some higher degrees of tem­perance, that are in Consilio, we arrive easilier to the preserva­tion [Page 127]of virginal, or also a conjugal, and necessary Chastity, and such as is sub Praecepto. And granted; That all Coun­sels whatsoever, are subordinate, and instrumental to the at­taining of that one Counsel of perfect Dilection. In which, and not in any other of them (tho every one of them also containeth a greater perfection, than the particular Precept to which it relates; as hath been said Thes. 2.) ultimately consists the greatest perfection attainable in this life; and of which is that much noted proposition of St. Thomas 2.2. q. 184. a. 3. to be understood; That perfectio Christiane vitae, per se, & essentialiter, consistit in Praeceptis [ viz. in these two charitatis, or dilectionis Dei, & proximi] secundario autem & instrumentaliter in Consiliis; viz. those higher acts of other Virtues that do all tend to the perfecting of this love; but it is meant by him of this Precept of Love in respect of the su­perior degrees thereof, which are in Consilio; and not, of the inferiour to which we are obliged under Sin; nor of the ne­cessary degree of Charity which every one must already have to be in the state of Grace, or Justification; which state only produceth the acceptable performance of these Counsels we speak of, that tend all to a greater Dilection; and yet which state always presupposeth this Dilection already had in some degree. γ ( p. 119.)

5ly, In comparing the several States of men according to their practice of necessary Duties, or also of Counsels, as it seems clear that in respect of any Precept of necessary Obedi­ence, and the Counsel relating to it, caeteris paribus, he must needs possess a higher degree of Christian perfection, that, besides the Precept, observes also the Counsel; that is, that performes the higher degrees of any Virtue, than he who only the less; so it is granted; that one in the observance of some particular Counsels, as Virginity, or Evangelical Poverty, &c. may be much inferiour to another that observes them not, where some other disparities appear. As where the o­ther observes some other Counsels of an higher perfection in which the former person is deficient; and especially if the later have attained to that, which is the end of all the other, a more intensively-perfect love of God; or also if he hath been constant in the performance of all the necessary duties with more purity and freedome from Venial Sins.

[Page 128] 6ly, Affirmed also; That in one, who in respect of some duties aspires to Counsels, and doth more, at least as to the external act, than is commanded; yet if he be disobedient (so far as to sin mortally) in respect of any other duty, there ceaseth now all Supererogation, or any acceptable, or re­wardable performance, of any such Counsels: because no work Meritorious or of Supererogation can be done, save by those, who are in the state of Grace, and possessed of the habit of Cha­rity. (See Head XVI.) And therefore far are Catholicks from imagining any acquitting, or recompensing of disobedi­ence in one thing by Supererogation in another; neither is the laudable, tho imperfect, performance of some Evangelical Counsels before Justification (whereby more easily to attain it, and the practice of necessary duties) reckoned by Catholicks any work of Supererogation, or to be any way preferrable to, or so perfect as, the observance of those Precepts of necessary Obedience after our Justification, to which such Counsels fa­cilitate the way. Much less yet is any thing to be accounted an act of greater perfection, or work of Supererogation, which is necessary to be done, in order to performing any Precept; for every Precept involves the injunction of all such means, without which it cannot be observed, upon the same penalty.

7ly, This for the thing. As for the expression of Super­erogations it is a word used, but not invented, by later times; but derived from Antiquity, who also took it up from the Scripture ( Luk. 10.35.) Quodcunque Supererogaveris, ego cum rediero, reddam tibi. Where St. Austine, De Sanctis Virgin. cap. 30. Nec enim sicut non Maechaberis, non occides, ita dici potest, non Nubes; illa exiguntur, ista offeruntur; si fiunt ista laudantur; imperat vobis, in hoc autem si quid Amplius Superero­gaveritis, in redeundo reddit vobis. And, De Opere Monach. c. 5. Amplius erogabat Apostolus Paulus, qui suis, ut ipse testatur, Stipendiis militabat. Again, Confess. l. 1. c. 4. Supereroga­tur tibi ut debeas, & quis habet quicquam non tuum?

HEAD. XIX. Of Penances and Satisfactions.

Of Penances and Satis­sactions.THE Catholick Assertions concerning Penances and Satis­factions may be easily collected out of these Theses con­cerning Justification and Merit.

1. By Penances Catholicks understand any Acts either pro­duced by adjuvant Grace, before Justification; or by inhabi­tant Grace after it; that are some way painful, laborious, or afflictive to us, by depriving us of some Good, either utile, or jucundum. Whereby all sorts of good Works may be reckoned Penal, and Satisfactory; as they do cross and mortify our con­trary, carnal, secular, and terrene appetites and inclina­tions. α.

α. Estius, 4. sent. 15. d. 24. §. Paena non aliud est quam privatio boni vel utilis, vel delectabilis: (Nam privatio boni ho­nesti ad culpam pertinet), igitur satisfactionem, quae cum tali quadam privatione, seu substractione, fieri debet, paenalem esse oportet. Lugo de Paenitent. Disp. 24. §. 3. De facto, omnis nostra operatio meritoria est simul satisfactoria; quia omnis de facto paenalis est; & sicut omnis satisfactio est simul meritoria, quia debet procedere ex actione laudabili, & honesta, ut diximus; sic etiam e contra, omnis actio meritoria est Satisfactoria, quia affert secum aliquam paenalitatem. Ratio autem a priori est, quia nullum est opus honestum, quod non adversetur alicui bono, vel delectabili, vel utili, &c. See δ.

Or would have crossed them, if these had not been by Grace formerly mortified; for, in such a case, a less pain in doing it, when it ariseth only from such a cause, diminisheth not, but increaseth the satisfactoriness and merit of the Work, as pro­ceeding from a person more eminently sanctified, and one who hath formerly suffered the pains he hath now conquered. Such then, are both these acts of Christian Virtues, which are sub Praecepto, and cannot be omitted in due time and [Page 130]place without sinning and breach of God's commands: which, in what sense they are said to merit and obtain life eternal, (See before, Head XVI.) may be much more in the same sense to merit and obtain the remission of some temporal punishment; (the divine acceptation being always supposed): As, like­wise, the same acts done more imperfectly before our Justifi­cation, are conditions or dispositions instrumental for ob­taining remission of our Sins, as well as of the infusion of Grace, in our Justification. β.

β. Lugo de Paenit. 24. §. 3. Art. 1. Per opera praecepta posse hominem satisfacere communis sententia & verissima affir­mat. Et quidem, stante doctrina Concilii Tridentini, contraria sententia non videtur posse ulla ratione sustineri; Num Concil. Tridentinum, Sess. 6. cap. 10. & 16. definit, iis operibus, qui­bus divina lex observatur, mereri hominem justum augmentum gratiae: Unde non apparet, cur non habeant ea opera vim pur­gandi debitum paenae, sicut habent vim novum jus comparandi ad novum praemium. And, see Bellarm. de Paenit. 4. l. 13. c. §. Adde quod. And Ibid. c. 8. He argues thus. Si opera justo­rum [ i. e. praecepta] eam vim habeant, ut vitam aeternam vere & proprie mereantur, nullo modo negari potest, quin etiam efficacia esse possunt ad satisfaciendum pro reatu paenae temporalis; siquidem longe majus est gloria aeterna, quam paenae temporalis remissio. In the same manner Lugo, Ibid. §. 1. Quia opera hominis justi habent aequalitatem & condignitatem [in what sense this see Head XVI.] in ratione meriti, in ordine ad beati­tudinem aeternam; ergo possunt habere condignitatem ad redimen­dum paulatim debitum paenae temporalis, quod est multo minus.

But such are more principally those higher acts of Christian Virtues that are in Consilio: [See Head XVIII.) which as they are still in a higher degree painful, and opposite to our secular contents than the other, and as in some sense in debita, (See Numb.) freely undertaken, so are they more acceptable to God and satisfactory (in the manner which shall be ex­plained hereafter) for any debt of punishment and suffering, that we still owe unto him, and that his vindicative justice, for our sins, is ready to inflict upon us. Thus the acts of any Christian Virtues may be reckoned amongst Works Satisfactory [Page 131]in respect of cancelling punishment (as also satisfactions, as they also are good works, cannot be denied to be meritorious in respect of acquiring Glory, but more especially, δ.

δ. See life eternal the promised reward of our temporal sufferings, 2. Cor. 7.14. and 2. Tim. 1.12. Rom. 8.17.13. and particularly of those Works wherein a satisfactory Vir­tue is said principally to consist; I mean Alms-deeds, Fasting, and Prayer. Matt. 25.34, 35. —6.6.16.18. [Where the open reward is the kingdome of heaven.] Bellarm. de Indulgent. 1. l. 2. c. In bonis actionibus hominum justorum duplex valor, sive praemium assignari potest, meriti videlicet & Satisfactionis. Again, Ibid. In uno atque eodem opere bono, & eleemosyna vel jejunio, & meritum & Satisfactio reperitur. Nam eleemosyna delet peccatum, quod est Satisfactorium esse; & tamen eadem eleemosyna, quia est opus bonum, & Deo gratum, meritoria est vitae aeternae. Esse Satisfactoriam convenit eleemosynae, quia opus est laboriosum & paenale; esse meritoriam convenit eidem, quia est opus bonum ex charitate factum. Eadem oratio simul est impetratoria & meritoria [meritoria, quia orans, orando, bene operatur, & Deo placet], quid impedit, quo minus possit esse simul Satisfactoria & Meritoria?

those of Prayer, Fasting, and Alms-deeds: The first respect­ing the Soul; and involving all the mental Exercises, and spiritual Mortifications thereof, in the acts of Contrition (For Contrition is not denied, as it is penal, so also to be sa­tisfactory) Confession, Deprecation, examinations of Con­science, intensive recollections of Spirit to celestial matters &c. acceptable to God. The second respecting the Body; and including the several macerations, and subduings thereof, by suffering cold, thirst, hunger, hard fare, clothing, lodging, disciplines, watchings, solitude, silence, &c. The third res­pecting the goods of fortune; but also those of the Soul, and Body, in order to the shewing all manner of Works of mercy to, or any way benefiting, our Neighbour. Always provided that our penal Works in any of these three kinds be such, first as are for the matter of them, lawful, which all those are▪ (Learned Protestants consenting.) γ. 1.

[Page 132] γ. 1. See Dr. Hammond, in his Answer (maintaining good Free-will; or spontaneous Worships) against Cawdry, much in this matter. p. 154. ‘The Law and Will of God being the Rule, in agreement with, or opposition to, which, lawful and unlawful consists; it is as impossible, that any thing should be unlawful in respect of God's Law, which is not forbidden by it, as that any should be lawful, that is forbidden.’ Again, p. 171. ‘The Pharisees doing some things which were not commanded, was no part of their Hypocrisy [I add, or fault] but on the contrary either their saying but not doing; or their preferring their own Traditions before commanded Duties. But still this is no prejudice to those real perfor­mances of more strictness than the Law exacts. Fasting twice in the Week, and the like; supposing they offend in no other respect, but, that they are uncommanded performances.’ Again, p. 128. To Cawdry, urging concerning these very matters we are here speaking of, Penances, Pilgrimages, Laniations of the Body, &c. ‘That, since the Romanists do not hold them forth as Commands of God, that which makes them impious mistaken Mortifications, is their being voluntary Worships, He answers.’ ‘It is not their making them the Worship of God, that renders them culpable, but the unfitness or inor­dinateness of them to that end, to which they are designed. Such Laniations of our own Bodies [and might not he here have added St. Paul's, 1. Cor. 9.27?] being on that account deprived of all appearance of being acceptable to God [Ac­ceptable to God, useful to that end or such end, the pricklings of an hair cloth, ( Matt. 11.21.)’ But not the lashes of a Disci­pline: Why so? Yet allows he there St. Paul's Sufferings 2. Cor. 11.27. which, why it may not include beating or scourging, as well as pining or prickling the Body, who can give a good reason?] Bishop White, Answer to Fisher, p. 302. ‘In a thing adiaphorous [ i. e. no way commanded by the Scripture] it is sufficient to make the practice lawful, if it be not repugnant to the Scripture.’

That are no way prohibited: 2ly, As are some way expe­dient and conducible to that good end to which they are de­signed, and, therefore also, acceptable to God; which many [Page 133]Penal Works ordinarily used in the Catholick Church need no such refuge; being either such as are commanded, and no where prohibited; and such as are known to be acceptable to his Divine Majesty, commanded us in the Scriptures, at least as to some inferior degree; or recommended to us there either in particular, or in general; and such as have been frequently practised by former Saints, and experienced power­ful for correcting vicious habits, preventing temptations and such as in Scripture have frequent promises made to them, of remission both of Sin to the not yet justified; and of God's temporal scourges for Sin, to those already received into his favour. γ. 2.

γ. 2. Bellarm. de Paenitent. 4. l. 6. c. Opera Satisfactoria in ge­nere non sunt caeremoniae, sed res utilissimae, quarum in divinis literis extant exempla, promissiones, & pr [...]cepta [i. e. quoad certum modum, the superior degrees being in Consilio, and therefore, when done, much more acceptable to God.] Again, Cap. 4. Paenitentiam Scripturae passim describunt per fletum, planctum, jejunium, saccum, &c. Itaque cum dicuntur aliqui Paenas sponte sua assumere, illud sponte sua non ex­cludit mandatum Dei de paenitentia agenda, & operibus laboriosis assu­mendis, sed excludit certum genus, aut majorem mensuram operum labo­riosorum, quam Scriptura, aut Ecclesia in particulari praescripserit.

Lastly Catholicks affirm, that any such Acts may be reckon­ed penal and satisfactory, either when voluntarily undertaken and imposed by our selves; or when enjoined us by our spiri­tual Physitian the Priest, (God's appointed Officer for recon­ciling Penitents, and prescribing the ways of making their peace with God); or also, when some of these, or other, Suffer­ings first imposed on us by God, yet are by our patience and chearful acceptation of them, made, and so offered back unto him, as it were Sufferings of our own choice, in conformity to his holy Will. This said concerning the matter of Pe­nances, next to proceed to their effect.

2ly, Catholicks then declare, That in the freeing us from Sin, and its bad effects, there are contained these particulars. 1st, The remitting of the fault or sin it self; as to the offence given to God by it, and our being resumed into his favour. [Page 134] 2dly, The remitting of the eternal punishment due thereto, which always accompanies the former; the retention of such punishment not consisting with a restored amity. 3ly, The remitting of the temporal punishment, or of some part of it. 4ly, The removing, out of our Soul, of the vicious habit, or inclination to Sin, left in it by the former frequented acts thereof. That three of these, the 1st, 2d, and 4th are removed in our Justification, without any thing in us meriting this, or satisfying for them. ε.

ε. Concil. Trident. Sess. 6.14. c. In paenitentia continentur &c. Satisfactiones per jejunia &c, non quidem pro paena aeterna, quae vel Sa­cramento, vel Sacramenti voto, una cum culpa remittitur &c. See Me­lancthon Apol. Confess. Aug. Art. de Confess. Fatentur Adversarii, quod Satisfactiones non prosint ad remissionem Culpae. And Rivet (in Dialys. Discuss. Grot. Art. 4.) opposing Grotius thought by him to speak somewhat Socinian-like concerning our Saviour's Satisfaction. Hic etiam novam ipsis Pontificiis doctrinam aperit [Baptismo & precibus satisfieri Deo pro peccatis.] Applicari Satisfactionem Christi per Sacra­mentum & per fidem hactenus apud Christianos creditum est: Sacramen­tum & preces adhibitas esse Satisfactionem pro peccatis, nemo hactenus dixit vel, credidit.

Only some pre-dispositions in us being required, without which the Application of Christ's Merits and Satisfactions, and our Justification is not attained. That of these con­ditions or predispositions required in us one is Repentance: and in it a due Contrition, in a greater or lesser degree, accord­ing to the quality of our former offences, especially in any greater relapses from our first Justification. And again; That, for the producing such due contrition, as likewise for the bring­ing the purpose of Reformation (another and chief part there­of) to good effect, there is ordinarily requisite the practice of the forementioned works of Penance, some or other, more or less according to the more stubborn, or flexible inclinations of the Soul to a penitent sorrow, and remorse, and softness, or hardness of the hearts of wretched sinners: less Penance being necessary; as the person better disposed. (χ.) Yet that neither are these Penal Works so far made necessary [Page 135]by Catholicks: as if all or most of them, were to precede every ones Justification; or any of them so absolutely necessary thereto; as that true Contrition may not possibly be without it: or such true Contrition, as is without it, not obtain a perfect Justification: ζ.

ζ. Bellarm. de Indulgent. 2. l. 17. c. Satis novinus posse hominem per internam conversionem ad Deum ita vehementer accendi in amorem Dei, & de peccatis suis dolere, cum proposito Confessionis, ut continuo recipiat remissionem omnium culparum & paenarum. [I add further; which intense and worthy Sorrow, or Contrition, did the Church know, she might absolve such Penitents (where no intervening of publick scandal) without imposing or reservation of any further Penance; or did the Penitent himself know, he also might omit all those other voluntary Penances, which he, without the Churches prescription, inflicts upon himself.] Daille de Paenis & Satisfactione, 1. l. 2. c. 5. p. Vel ipsi adversarii fatentur, insignem peccatoris contriti­onem omnem saepe paenam expungere.

But only; That the Sinner, being uncertain of his possessing such a sufficient Contrition as is answerable to his offences, is exceedingly concerned not to neglect these means so much conducing thereto, which also are frequently in Scripture joined with Repentance, and have a like promise annexed of remission of Sin. η.

η. Conc. Trident. Sess. 6. c. 9. Sicut nemo pius de Dei misericordia, de Christi merito, deque Sacramentorum virtute, & efficacia, dubitare debet; sic quilibet, dum seipsum, suamque propriam infirmitatem, & in­dispositionem respicit, de sua gratia formidare & timere potest; cum nullus scire valeat, certitudine fidei, cui non potest sub-esse falsum, se gratiam Dei esse consecutum. Thus the Council. Of which uncer­tainty Cardinal Lugo, De Paenit. 2. Disp. §. 7. give these Reasons. Quia nescimus, an actus doloris fuerit undiquaque bonus, absque admix­tione alicujus circumstantiae malae tenentis se ex parte actus, qui reddat actum malum, saltem venialiter. 2. Quia saepe putamus nos diligere Deum super omnia, & fallimur; habemus enim occultum in corde affectum ad aliquid Deo repugnans. Sicut Saul, 1. King. 15. And Ibid: In Answer to the Fathers. Non negamus (saith he) expedire, ut peccator conetur [Page 136]summa intentione dolere, ut certior sit paenitentia &c. In quo sensu de­bent accipi Patres, qui summum dolorem exigunt. And to the Scrip­tures. Ibi Movemur (saith he) ad id quod melius est; ne forte, dum minus volumus, non habeamus etiam quod sufficit. Conc. Trid. Sess. 14.8. Cap. Debent Sacerdotes Domini, pro qualitate criminum, & poenitentium facultate, salutares & convenientes Satisfactiones in­jungere; ne si forte peccatis conniveant, & indulgentius cum paeniten­tibus agant, levissima quaedam opera pro gravissimis delictis injungendo, alienorum peccatorum participes efficiantur [Which relates as well to the non-remission of the Sin, ne alienorum peccatorum participes, &c. if there be not yet true Contrition, as of the punishment.] Ibid. Sane & divinae justitiae ratio exigere videtur, ut aliter a Domino in gra­tiam recipiantur, qui ante Baptismum per ignorantiam deliquerint; aliter vero, qui semel a peccati & Daemonis servitute liberati, & accepto spiritus sancti dono scientes templum Dei violare & spiritum sanctum contristare non formidaverint. [Which Reason holds as well for a sufficient Contrition in order to Remission of Sin; as sufficient Sa­tisfaction, in order to Punishment:] Bellarm. de Paenit. 2. l. 11. c. Dolor de peccatis esse debet summus appreciative; i. e. ut voluntas pluris aestimet detestationem peccati, quam cujuscunque boni consecutio­nem, aut alterius mali evitationem. To which he adds afterwards. Ibid. Periculum est, ne homo se ipse fallat, & dum in se ad acrem & intensam contritionem excitare non satagit, revera ne appreciative, quidem toto corde crimina detestetur. And elsewhere, De Paenit. l. 2. c. 14. Quia nemo certo scire potest, se veram contritionem habuisse, Itaque ut quis de adepta indulgentia securior sit, debet omnia illa reme­dia adhibere, quae Deus ad peccata purganda instituit. Again concern­ing a different Contrition of different Sins, Ibid. On St Cyprian's Saying, In Sermo. de Lapsis. Quam magna deliquimus, tam granditer defleamus, he Comments thus. Non significat dolorem absolute offen­sioni aequandum esse, quod fieri non potest; sed proportionem illam inter peccata & dolorem de peccatis, esse debere, ut de majore peccato magis, de minore minus doleamus. And on that of St. Ambrose, Lib. ad Virg. corruptam 8. c. Quanta putas, & qualis necessaria Paenitentia, quae aut aequet crimina, aut certe excedat? Non ita accipiendum est (saith he) quasi Paenitentia aequare, aut excedere debet peccatum, aut offensam Dei, sed ut dolor Paenitentiae aequet, aut excedat voluptatem quam pec­cando accepimus; quod aliis verbis ita scripsit Hugo de S. Victore, De Sacram. 2. l. p. 14 2. c. Si in correctione minor est afflictio quam [Page 137]in culpa fuit delectatio, non est dignus Paenitentiae tuae fructus. Estius, 4. sent. 16. d. §. 7. Sicut peccata alia aliis graviora sunt, ita magis de uno, quam de alio pro ratione gravitatis eorum dolere debet peccator, magis, inquam appreciative. And, tho there he maintains, that, ad remissionem culpae non necessario requiritur ex parte contritionis ad cer­tum aliquem gradum intensio, neque ad certum tempus extensio; yet he speaks of intentio, post Deum summe dilectum, & aliis rebus omnibus prae­latum, which he requires even in the least Attrition profitable, so that a Contrition falling in any degree short of this is invalid; and this is no small matter.

For true Contrition containing in it both cessationem a peccato, or vitae novae propositum & inchoationem: and veteris odium; ( Conc. Trid. Sess. 14.4, cap.) Neither will hate be without ta­king revenge, nor a Reformation effected without many painful acts in the crossing of our former secular, or carnal, Concupi­scences. And Mortifications of the Body do usually accom­pany a saving Contrition (that is, where is time, and abili­ty to perform them) in the same manner as good Works do a saving Faith. And great reason have we to suspect, that these solitary internal Acts of Contrition accompanied with no external Humiliations (where strength or time fails not) are none of those vehement and intensive ones, as, alone, ope­rate the forenamed effect.

3ly, That the Sacerdotal Absolution, and Sacrament of Penance, appointed for the restoring of sinners relapsed after their first justification, yet hath not this real effect of restoring them when received, without any such due pre-dispositions in the persons absolved; and, particularly, without any such Repentance, Contrition, or Godly sorrow, as is required in the person proportionably to his sin, hath no effect, they say, till such Conditions be, first, performed. θ.

θ. Cardinal Cajetan, Opuscul. Tract. 5. q. 5. De horum numero uti­nam non maxima pars Christianorum paenitentium sit, quos non sicut primos, puta virtute clavium de attritis regulariter fieri contritos, sed in sua attri­tione absolvi & communicare. Cujus signum est &c. De istorum Confessione intelligo doctrinam Thomae [in 4. sent. 17. disp.] quod confessio infor­mis per defectum contritionis est valida, ita ut non sit iteranda; & erit [Page 138]eis fructuosa, quando ascendent adcor altum, ut habeant peccatum pro summo odibili & summo vitabili &c. See more in the Author. Card. Lugo, De Sacramentis, Disp. 9. §. 6. Sicut Baptismus, ablato obice, re­mittit priora peccata, sic Sacramentum Paenitentiae remittit sua, ablato obice: Nulla certe ratio excogitari potest ad negandum hoc de Sacramento Panitentiae, si concedatur de Baptismo, & supponatur Sacramentum Paeni­tentiae validum, & informe. Again,— Licet Sacramentum Paenitentiae sit reiterabile, non est tamen obligatio reiterandi illud circa eadem peccata semel valide subjecta clavibus. Unde, si non daret postea effectum, ablato obice, illa peccata non dimitterentur directe per claves Ecclesiae, neque esset obligatio ea confitendi ad hunc finem; quod ex vipraesentis Institutionis videtur absurdum.

4ly. That therefore where no such worthy Repentance and due Contrition, or godly sorrow precedes such Absolution, these Penances (tho done after Absolution) have the self same operation and concurrence to produce such Contrition, and to procure our Justification, and the forementioned remission of Sin, and eternal Punishment; and are as necessary for this effect as if done before; and, till this effected, are for this very thing prescribed by the Church, or are to be voluntari­ly undertaken, by Sinners, as the principal end to which they tend, and for which they are imposed, or recommended to Christian Practice. Therefore the Baptist calls for these digni fructus paenitentiae in order to escaping ira ventura; i. e. Hell fire, and the eternal punishment of Sin. See Matt. 3.7, 8. comp. 10, 11; And as Protestants much urge, so Catho­licks willingly grant, that the Fathers do make frequent men­tion of the necessity, and prevalency with God, of our Pe­nances and Satisfactions, in relation to these effects. χ.

χ. Concil. Trident. Sess. 14.8. cap. Debent Sacerdotes Domini &c. See (η.) Ne, si forte peccatis conniveant, & indulgentius cum paenitentibus agant, levissima quaedam opera pro gravissimis delictis in­jungendo, alienorum peccatorum participes efficiantur. Now how can the Priest be so, if due Penance not required (I mean as necessary predispositions, and as concurring to effect a due Contrition) to Absolution from the Sin? Estius, 4. Sent. Disp. 15. §. 10. Quod Satisfactio, etiam subsequens absolutionem, aliquo modo respicere debeat paenam aeternam, ex eo patet, quia & ipsa est pars Sacramenti paeniten­tiae [Page 139]instituti ad solvenda vincula mortis aeternae; & absolutio datur, non tantum intuitu contritionis & confessionis, verum etiam Satisfactionis factae, vel faciendae. Cum igitur paenitentem absolvat Sacerdos a paena aeterna, consequens est, etiam Satisfactionem in suo genere atque ordine ad eum effectum valere, sicut Contritionem & Confessionem, licet non omnino aequaliter. And so Bellarm. de Paenit. 1. l. 5. c. At quae con­tumelia Christo esse potest, si dicamus meritum passionis ejus esse veram atque unicam peccatorum medicinam, eamque applicari per verbum abso­lutionis iis, qui per Contritionem & Confessionem, ac Satisfactionem pro­positam, ad eam medicinam recipiendam rite praeparantur. [ here is prae­paratio per Satisfactionem, ad applicandum meritum passionis, medi­cinam peccatorum.] Estius, Ibid. Satisfactio Christi per se suffici­entissima ad tollendam omnem paenam; sed divinitus sic ordinatum, ut ista nobis non applicetur, ne quidem ad solutionem paenae aeternae, nisi & ipsiper opera quaedam paenalia Christo compatiamur. Again, Sunt con­ditiones quaedam paenales ex parte nostra requisitae ad hoc, ut passio & mors Christi tanquam plenissima Satisfactio nobis ad tollendum reatum paenae aeternae applicetur. Ibid. §. 14. Quarta utilitas Satisfactionis propriae est placatio irae divinae super peccatis commissis, sive relaxatio paenarum temporalium adhuc debitarum, vel etiam paenae aeternae, juxta sensum in Superioribus explicatum [ i. e. per modum conditionis, &c. applying to this the Apostles words, 2. Cor. 7. Quae secundum Deum tristitia est, paenitentiam in salutem stabilem operatur.] Bellarm. de Paenit. 4. l. 12. c. Concurrunt & prosunt nostra opera paenalia ad culpae remissionem, & mortis aeternoe liberationem, ut dispositiones, &c. Sicut actus fidei. See Ibid. c. 14. §. Ad hanc. 2. l. 12. c. De bonis operi­bus, 3. l. 3. c. Vere enim ejusmodi eleemosynae [now its the same of other Penal Works, Fasting, &c] partim ut dispositiones ad Justifica­tionem, peccatum etiam quoad culpam suo modo delent, dum gratiam impetrant justificationis; partim, post acceptam remissionem culpae, Sa­tisfaciunt pro poena temporali. And, Cap. 4. Eleemosyna dispositio est ad gratiam justificationis, si fiat ab eo, qui paenitentiam agere incipit, & ex Dei motione & auxilio speciali. De hoc fructu loquitur Solomon, Prov. 16.6. Luk. 11.41. —19.8. comp. 9. Act. 10 4.

Neither, since the regained amity of God, and remission of eternal torments is infinitely more valuable than the remission of the temporal, can it be imagined; but that God requires these our Humiliations, and Mortifications, as well for ob­taining [Page 140]of the first, as of the second. Or, that the ancient discipline in requiring the performance of these Penances from lapsed sinners, in order to procuring God's favour, pardon of their sin, and freedome from Hell, before the absolving them from such sins; and restoring them to the Churches Communion, herein mis-applied them. [Though that must be always remembred, which the Council of Trent hath de­clared, Sess. 6. c. 14. That, in respect of these, they are not Satisfactions, since they have no proportionable worth at all to them; nor yet are the acts of a person by Grace inhabitant rendred acceptable to God; but are only conditions and pre­dispositions in us for obtaining the application of Christ's all-sufficient Satisfactions.]

5ly, That therefore, though now in later times (wherein all the faithful, those also persisting in the state of Justifica­tion, yet do frequently, and beneficially, repair to Confession) not without good causes moving thereto, the performance of such Penances from greater sinners is not usually exacted, as anciently, before Sacerdotal Absolution, and admission to Com­munion; yet, still, where there is greater doubt of some defect in the Penitents Contrition, for the perfecting thereof Abso­lution, and approach to the Eucharist, is by prudent Confessors for some time suspended, and the performance of such Pe­nances discreetly premised. λ.

λ. Layman, 5. l. 6. Tract. 4. c. Si Paenitens, post duas aut tres Confessiones, eandem peccati speciem eodem vel majori numero adferat, & nullus emendationis conatus ante cessisse videatur; hoc casu differenda erit absolutio, nominato aliquo temporis spacio, intra quod Paenitens conatum adhibeat ad criminis emendationem; postea absolutionem accepturus. Bonacina de Paenit. Disp. 5. §. 3. p. 2. Prop. 4. Confessarius potest obli­gare paenitentem ad paenitentiam ante absolutionem adimplendam, qua­tenus judicaverit expedire ad curationem, & medicinam paenitentis. See Suarez de Paenit. Disp. 38. §. 7. n. 7. See the Rules of Carlo Borrho­meo, Acta Eccl. Med. Part 4 in Instruct. Confess. enjoining Confessors to defer Absolution to persons offending mortally in such sins, as are grown to much excess: to those who have not quitted the near oc­casions of their former sins; or who, they probably gather, will quickly return to them: [for the Contrition of such seems not suffi­cient [Page 141]till some experience be had of their Reformation. And see Xaverius his Instruction to Gaspar, Rector of the Colledge at Goa (Tursel. Vita Xaver. 6. l. 17. c.) Confessionem non continua sequetur Absolutio; sed biduum, triduumve dabitur eorum peccatoribus certarum rerum meditatione praeparandis, ut interim animorum maculas, lachrymis & voluntariis eluant paenis. Si quid cui debent, restituant; simultatibus, si quas habent, depositis redeant cum inimicis in gratiam, a libidinis con­suetudine, caeterisque, quibus impliciti sunt, flagitiis expediantur. Haec omnia absolutionem rectius praecurrunt, quam sequuntur. [Where the space of time mentioned, doubtless, ought to be prolonged, as a longer Mortification seems necessary.] Lastly, In the Pope's Briefs to those who are authorized to absolve in reserved Cases, they are enjoined not to absolve any for such great Sins, till some part at least of a rigo­rous Satisfaction first performed. See the large Collection of Authori­ties to this purpose in Arnauld de la Frequen. Communion. Part. 2. c. 44, 45.

6ly, That God, no Acceptour of Persons or Ages, doth in no times require lesser Penances or Humiliations from us for procuring his pardon of our sins, or averting either his eternal, or his temporal, punishment of them, than in others. So that, though such Penances happen not, for some good reasons, to be so severely now, as anciently, imposed on Peni­tents by their Ghostly Fathers according to the true demerit of their sins; or, being imposed equal to the sin in his judg­ment, yet really are not so; yet are they still in the same mea­sure due, nevertheless, to be performed to God for such sin as well now as in any former times; and therefore the Coun­cil of Trent, endeavouring to correct some modern neglects, requires — Ut Sacerdotes, quantum spiritus & prudentia sug­gesserit, pro qualitate criminum, & paenitentium facultate, salu­tares & convenientes Satisfactiones injungant; And that — Non tantum ad novae vitae custodiam & infirmitatis medicamentum, sed etiam ad praeteritorum peccatorum vindictam, & castiga­tionem, [an Office committed to them by our Lord, Jo. 20.23.] Ne si forte peccatis conniveant, & indulgentius cum paenitentibus agant, levissima quaedam opera pro gravissimis delictis injun­gendo alienorum peccatorum participes efficiantur. μ.

[Page 142] μ. Bellarm. de Indulgent. 2. l. 18. c. Et veteres, & recentiores, Episcopi non aliis quam paenitentibus Indulgentias tribuunt, nec alias paenas [Penances] quam in foro paenitentiario debitas, relaxant. Quod autem [ex paenis in [...]oro paenitentiario debitis] tunc relaxarentur paenae injunctae, nunc autem tum injunctae, tum injungendae, ratio est, quoniam tunc injungebantur severiores paenitentiae, quae saepe delictis aequases erant, nunc autem injunguntur mitiores, quae delictis impares sunt; sed, sive pares sive impares injunguntur, omnino pares in hac vita vel in alia per­ferendae sunt [for our defect of performance of due Penance for our Sin] nisi misericorditer relaxentur. Again, 8. Cap. Hoc tempore non injungitur quidem paenitentia tam severa [ i. e. pluribus annis] tamen vere debitores sunt, qui peccata gravia commiserunt paenitentiae agendae multis, vel annis, vel diebus &c. And, — Ut plurimum, longe plus est quod expiandum restat per non-injunctas paenitentias, quam quod expiatur per injunctas. And 7. Cap. §. Ex his — Imo Sacerdotes cum Paeniten­tias imponunt, hortantur paenitentes, ut ipsi etiam sponte assumant alias, cum credibile sit impositas non esse aequales criminibus; & Cyprianus dicat. — Paenitentia crimine minor non sit. quod idem alii Patres docent. Again, 2. l. 9. c. §. tertio. Tunc majores paenas Deus exiget, quando Paenitentia Canonica injuncta est minor, quam par esset, sed si injungatur aequalis [ i. e. as explained below, Thes. 9. n. 4.] ut plane injungi potest, & ea plene exolvatur, nihil in Purgatorio solvendum superesse omnes Ca­tholici docent. Estius, 4. Sent. dist. 15. §. 21 Si Sacerdos officio suo desuerit [in jungens, dans, opera levia pro delictis gravibus] vel etiam, justa quaquam ratione addictus, minorem quam pro exigentia delicti Satis­factionem injunxerit; omnino videtur paenitens, qui eum defectum vel scit velscire debot, teneri ad satisfactionem aliquam ultra assumendam, [...]aque donec tota satisfactio perveniat ad quandam aequalitatem cum paena remporali pro peccatis debita; cujus ratio est, quia quamdiu nondum fecit fructus dignos paenitentiae, nondum satisfecit divino praecepto. Matt. 3.8. Card. Tolet. Instruct. Sacerd. 3. l. 11. c. Advertendum est, quod paeni­tentia imposita a Confessore, quamvis, ut diximus, magis prosit quam volun­tarie assumpta, non tamen semper adhuc delet totam paenam, sed partem aliquam, nisi tam grandis sit ut totam auferat. Sed humana fragilitas non patitur tales panitentias: Ob id, merito indulgentiis & omnibus bonis operibus vitae juvamur, & adhuc in purgatorio solvenda post obitum feri­mus. Lastly thus Lugo de Paenitent. Disp. 25. §. 2. Non sufficere pru­dentem existimationem Ministri Prebatur (saith he): Quia ad causandos [Page 143]alios effectus Sacramentales non sufficit prudens existimatio ministri; v. g. in absolutione non sufficit, quod sacerdos prudenter judicet, paeni­tentem esse dispositum, nec ad effectum Eucharistiae sufficit, quod pruden­ter aliquis existimet, se esse in gratia, & sic de aliis; ergo nec ad hunc effectum remissionis paenae sufficiet, quod Sacerdos prudenter existimet, esse satisfactionem aequalem, si revera non sit: Dico autem aequalem non mathe­matice (non enim requiritur talis) sed juxta regulam & dispositionem divinam, qua Christus instituit in hoc Sacramento tantam satisfactionem paenitentis cum tali dispositione valere ad tollendum tantum reatum paenae temporalis.

And, That therefore it is more beneficial to the Peni­tent, that these be, in case of great and mortal sins, in some larger proportion prescribed (and such Penitents have good cause both gratefully to accept, and to desire it of their Con­fessors); Both for that such Penances are as necessary now, as heretofore, to be paid in the same proportion, at least by our own supplying such a defect; and a less measure of them prescribed is more effectual to such purposes, than a greater voluntarily undertaken; both for the Sacramental efficacy, and the power of the Keys exercised in the one, that is not in the other: and also, for the merit of Obedience, when they may happen to be imposed by these our spiritual Superiors in a way less grateful to us. ν.

ν. Layman, 5. l. 6. Tract. 15. c. Multo plus valet modica paeni­tentia a Sacerdote imposita, quam magna, quae sponte assumitur; quia non haec, sicut illa, vim Sacramentalem habet [ Estius adds; nor meritum obedientiae; all Obedience being a kind of Mortification]: Quamobrem [...]ptandum est paenitenti, ut non levis ipsi paenitentia imperetur.

7. Thus much of Penances and Satisfactions, as they relate also to Contrition and the Remission of Sin, and eternal tor­ments due thereto, in our Justification. 7ly, Catholicks affirm, That after Sin, and its eternal punishment thus re­mitted; and after the person restored into God's favour in his Justification, yet both after our first Justification by Bap­tisme, as to some temporal sufferings in this life, (tho not in the next); but chiefly, after a second by the Sacrament of [Page 144]Penance, to those, who have relapsed after Baptism into greater sins, and who (to use the expression of the Council of Trent, Sess. 6. cap. 14) Gratiae Dei, quam acceperunt, ingrati spiri­tum Sanctum contristaverant, & Templum Dei violare non sunt veriti, there, many times, remains still reserved (and so not the Sin, always, as to all its punishment, remitted in our Justi­fication, See Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. Cap. 4.) some temporal pu­nishments, besides that common one of a corporal Death, to be undergone by them; God's justice not admitting so far the application to us, gratis, or for our former repentance, of the all meritorious satisfactions of our Lord, as that great sins especially should escape impune and unchastised with some temporal scourges at least; in this manner, to shew his hate to sin even when he hath taken into favour the sinner. Ex­amples of which punishments of the sin, after God reconciled to the person, and so his offence in this sense removed, are found frequent in Scripture; See Numb. 20.12. —27.12, 13, 14. Numb. 14.34. —2. Sam. 12.10.13, 14. —2. Sam. 24.10.13. —2. King. 20.6.18. comp. 2. Chron. 32.31. —2. Chron. 20.37. —35.22, 23. —1. King. 13.22. —1. Cor. 3.15. Exod. 32.34. [Where the punishment threatned ver. 10. being remitted; yet are others [less than that) reserved, whensoever their new sins should provoke the Lord also to remember these.] Josh. 22.17. Psal. 89.31. &c. Prov. 11.31. —1. Pet. 4.18. Ecclesiasticus, 5.4. Psal. 98.8. —1. Cor. 11.31, 32. Which temporal Sufferings of the already justified, Protestants also, though some of them had rather call them Chastisements and Corrections, than Punishments, acknowledge inflicted on them for former Sin; and amongst other ends, for this: to shew God's hate to Sin. ξ.

ξ. Chemnitius Exam. Conc. Trid. Part. 2. De Satisfact. Fide, propter Christum, accipimus simul remissionem culpae & paenae aeternae. Sed, quod ad paenas temporales in hac vita attinet, post acceptam remissio­nem peccatorum, subjiciuntur [justificati] in hac vita vel communibus ca­lamitatibus, vel peculiaribus paenis propter certa, seu privata, quaedam peccata. Ut Adam, David, populus Israel, Miriam. Testantur idem calamitates Baptizatorum post baptismam. Ostendunt etiam Scripturae exampla, Deum aliquando & post reconciliationem seu remissionem, qui­busdam [Page 145]singulares paenas ob peccata in hac vita imponere, quanquam hoc non sit universale. Scripture etiam dicit de reconciliatis; Corpus mor­tuum est propter peccatum, Roman. 8. & 2. Reg. 12. Quia fecisti hoc &c. Non quasi Deus illis nondum satis sit reconciliatus, seu aliquid offensae retinuerit, etiam post datam remissionem peccatorum; sed illis imponun­tur ad castigationem sui, & ad exemplum aliorum. Ne, accepta recon­ciliatione, obliviscantur, quanta sit abominatio peccati & quae magnitudo irae Dei adversus peccatum. Ut crescat in ipsis odium & detestatio pec­cati, timor Dei, fides sollicite curans, ut gratiam retineat. Ut his Ex­ercitiis conservetur & confirmetur paenitentia, quae perpetua esse debet, fides, obedientia in Cruse, spes, petitio, & expectatio auxilii, liberationis seu mitigationis. Denique Deus vult in illis tanquam in publico specta­culo, conspici Exempla, admonentia, & nos & alios de judicio suo adversus peccata &c. Daille, De Paenis & Satisfact. 1. l. 3. c. Neque absolute negaverat Calvinus piorum castigationes ad praeteritum referri, qui sciret eas. piis imponi ob admissa delicta. Libenter concedimus, ob admissum a Davide peccatum mortuum esse ejus filium. Mortem parvuli paenam [i. e. impositum in ultionem peccati] [tho ultio he calls it, when man punisheth such Sin (See De Christ. Pacif. (σ.) and so doth the Scrip­ture (2. Cor. 7.11.) why not when God?] fuisse admissi a Davide peccati proprie dictam negamus. Again, Sapientissimus Pater, ut grassa­turae pesti occurreret, tempestiveque tanto malo mederetur, sui in ea pec­cata, qualia a Davide admissa erant, odii [and why not as well suae ultionis, which he denies, See pag. 5.) specimen edendum putavit, sub­lato, parentis ante oculos, filio. So he saith chap. 6. of the punishment of Moses's Sin. Ea insigne documentum fuit, tum nostrae miseriae, tum sanctitatis ac puritatis divinae; quae ne minimos quidem, vel carissimorum ministrorum naevos sine animadversione transmittit.

But next, Concerning these temporal Punishments, Catho­licks do not affirm, 1. That there always remains a debt of them reserved after remission of the Sin obtained in Justi­fication. But that, in this, one act of Contrition may possi­bly be so intense and prevalent with his Divine Majesty, as to remove at once, thro Satisfactions of Christ, whatever punish­ment due thereto; ζ. and that after our Regeneration in Bap­tisme, no temporal Punishment, at least in the next world, (of which see Council of Trent, Sess. 6. c. 14. Conc. Florent. de Baptisme) where the person being now uncapable of melio­rating [Page 146]his condition, several former ends of such sufferings cease, remains payable for any sins preceding it. 2. Again of Punishments that remain, they do not affirm, the sole end of God's inflicting them to be the Satisfaction of his vindicative Justice upon Sin, but many other merciful purposes: As for the cure of the remaining stains, and bad impressions of such Sin, and of the vicious inclinations left in the offenders, or also for increasing the merit of the sufferer, by the exercise and improvement of many Christian Virtues in his patient and chearful undergoing of them. Again, for the deterring them, or at least others, by the Example of these their punish­ments seen, or heard of, from committing the like offences. This last being one end of all temporal punishments whatever, whether in this life, or after it, so long as any live to take notice of them: for Death it-self is a perpetual Memorial to men of God's hate to Sin; and the circumstances of many mens death a warning to others not to provoke God's judg­ments in the like manner. 3. Again, Of these temporal pu­nishments reserved, they affirm not, That all of them are cer­tainly removable by any ordinary means used to avert, or prevent them; As the retaining of which may, some other way above mentioned, tend more to God's glory; as for Example: that of David, was not released; nor that of Moses; nor is the General one of a corporal Death, at some time or other, executed on all. π.

π. Bellarm. de Faenit. 4. l. 3. c. Paenae temporales hujus vitae in­terdum non possunt redimi, sed necessario perpetiendae sunt; id, quod extra omnem controversiam esse videtur. Deus enim aliquando ita paenam aliquam constituit, ut nullam pro ea redemptionem accipere velit. Talis imprimis paena mors est, quam nullus, quantumvis justus, nllo pio opere avertere potuit. Talis fuit illa paena Davidis (2. King. 12.) & Moysis. See Antidagm. Coloniense de Satisfactione. Interim tamen & hoc prae­dicatum & doctum fuit [a Patribus] neminem vel posse, vel debere Deo terminum aut modum remissionis paenae statuere; ac si oporteret Deum, ad completam Canonicam satisfactionem, illico a flagellis suis cessare: Christo vero reconciliatori nostro, cui Pater omne judicium dedit, prorsus relin­quenda est paenae remissio, a quo petere oportet ut obedientiam nostram velit per meritum suum patri caelesti facere acceptam, & paenam pro-meritam misericorditer avertere.

[Page 147] And again, of those removable, they grant; That some may be so, only upon an intense act of Contrition, or upon Prayer and Deprecation without any further Penances, espe­cially where opportunity doth not admit them; which Prayers, (and those considered not as Penal, but meerly as petitioning), as they are held effectual, by impetration of the application of Christ's Merits, which God, for averting temporal punish­ments from others, living or dead; so, much more, may they be, from our selves. ρ.

ρ. Lugo de Paenitent. Disp. 24. §. 1. Facilius potest aliquis impetrare sibi, quam alteri. Neque illa peccata manent tunc impunita, sed satisfit plene divinae justitiae, applicando Satisfactiones Christi pro paena, quam nos debebamus solvere; quae applicatio obtineri potest aliquando per orationes. Sicut nec manent impunita peccata, quando paena pro iis debita remittitur per Indulgentias, aut Sacramenta vel Sacrificia; quia tunc etiam Satis­factiones Christi applicantur, quibus solvitur plenissime totum debitum.

But meanwhile the faithful, not knowing the just measure, value or effect, of his own Contrition, or Prayers, where time serves, cannot upon this prudently omit any other means, which God hath left as helpful for attaining the same effect; and those things are at all times to be held necessary and use­ful, which at no time he knows to be superfluous.

8ly, Catholicks affirm: That, as the aforesaid Penances, and Satisfactions, when done only by Grace assistant, are preva­lent with God for obtaining the Remission of Sin, and its eter­nal punishment in our Justification; so, after it, that these, when done by Grace inhabitant, may much more prevail with God, for obtaining the remission of some temporal punish­ment, Chastisement, or Correction, still reserved by God as the scourge of the Sin, though after his having re-admitted into favour the Sinner. A thing conceded also by Prote­stants. σ.

σ. Chemnitins, Exam. Conc. Trid. 2. Part de Satisfactionibus. Illas etiam temporales paenas, Scriptura tradit, reconciliatis, propter filium mediatorem, saepe vel mitigari, velprorsus tolli, quando vera hu­militate peccata agnoscunt, fide Deum invocant, veterem hominem mor­tificant, [Page 148]& serio novam vitam meditantur, hoc est, non in debitis huma­narum traditionum operibus, sed tota paenitentia, quae habet mandatum Dei, paenae illae propter Christum mitigantur. [quoting 2. Paralip. 6.26. Joel, 2.13. —1. Cor. 11.] Observandum vero est (saith he) paenas tem­porarias mitigari tota paenitentia, non quod opera ejus sint vel compensa­tiones, vel merita remissionis peccatorum, sed quia castigationibus illis Deus in reconciliatis nihil aliud quaerit, quam ut conservetur, magis accenda­tur, crescat & augeatur vera humilitas, agnitio, odium & detestatio pec­cati; exercitium fidei, mortificatio veteris hominis, patientia, spes &c. Daille, De Paenis & Satisfact. 7. l. 6. c. answering to the Fathers. Significant (saith he) temporalibus illis paenis, quaecunque tandem sint, eos, quos peccati vere paenituit, [i. e. paenitentia ejusque fructibus, la­chrymis, jejuniis, orationibus, eleemosynis, as he expresseth it before] non aliter eximi ac liberari, quam si nullas unquam essent promeriti. Hunc vero paenitentiae certum & immutabilem eventum esse (quod ex Patrum dictis sequitur) ultro, ac libentes, fatemur; eventum istum ex jure & justitia, sive ex paenitentiae ipsius dignitate esse, non autem ex mera Dei optimi misericordia, ac veritate, constantissime quidem negamus. Bishop White against Fisher, Q. 21. P. 540. grants, ‘That, after great and enormous offences committed by his people, God doth chastise them with the rod of Correction, Ps. 89.33. —1. Cor. 11.31, 32. Which Correction is a pain of Castigation, but not a punishment of Malediction.’ Grants also, ‘That this affliction or pain of chastise­ment inflicted upon penitent Sinners, may by Prayer of Faith, exer­cise of Virtue, Humiliation and Mortification, be either removed, or else mitigated. But denies, that such persons can by Prayer, Mor­tification or any good Works, merit release of any temporal Mulct.’ And contends, ‘That the Fathers under the word, Satisfaction, under­stand not the word Satisfaction strictly and in rigor, for satisfaction of condignity, as Romists do, but improperly and largely, to wit, For satisfaction of deprecation, congruity or impetration.’ Calvin, De Christiana Pacificat. 5. c. Qui paenas divinas avertere cupit, non est, quod studeat satisfactione aliqua, quod deliquit expungere; [because Christ's Satisfactions have, and only can, do this]: Sed, se quibuscun­que potest modis cum ad humilitatem, tum ad veram resipiscentiam eru­diens, suipsius peccati ultor sit homo; ne Deum experiatur ultorem [by not having Christ's Satisfactions applied to, or accepted for him] Qui Deum sibi vult parcere, ipse sibi nec parcat nec indulgeat &c. Sed hoc totum nihil est ad mutuam compensationem: Nam, qui in hunc modum [Page 149]de se paenas sumunt, quo praeveniant Dei judicium; constituunt sibi nihil­ominus in Christi Sacrificio non modo culpae expiationem, sed paenarum etiam, quaecunque meriti sunt, veniam. Spalat. 5. l. 8. c. 4. §. Deus, quoniam peccatum nullum relinquit absolute impunitum (quia misericors quidem est, sed etiam justus) cum dilectis suis i [...]a agit; ut, si ipsi in se peccata propria puniant, ille nolit ea ordinarie punne, & contentus est ex sua misericordia, ut loco flagellorum, quibus ipse solet peccata hominum in hac vita purgare, paenae a peccatore voluntarie assumptae succedant: eas Patres ponant in interna potissimum contritione, qua Peccator seipsum, adjutus divina Gratia, macerat propter peccatum. In reliquis supplet Christi Satisfactio; sed quae nemini applicetur, qui paenitens non sit, & consequenter, qui de seipso prius aliquas paenas saltem interni doloris non sumit. Satisfacit ergo Deo, qui hoc facit, quia facit id, quod Deus ab eo requirit: & quo facto ipse plenam donat remissionem, non propter hanc minimam, nulliusque precii aut meriti satisfactionem; sed propter plenam satisfactionem Christi. Dr. Fern ( Answer to Spencer, p. 146.) ‘We cannot allow the Purposes (or at least Practices) of the Romish Church, in commending those Penals, as meritorious and satisfactory to God's Justice; that I may say nothing of the no small gain, that is made thereby. But we allow and commend the doing of the things, these self-afflictives, 1st, In order to the obtaining of Remission of Sin, and Punishment: So the sackcloth, ashes, lying on the ground, as in the Ninevites, Jonah 3. c. 2ly, After forgiveness, they are profitable, when done, either in respect to Sin past, by way of wholsome Discipline, to make us more wary of such Sins, &c. Or, when done in order to averting some temporal Judgment &c. And these afflictives, or exercises of self-denial, may be either voluntary, undertaken of our selves; or, by advice of the Priest, that hath the Ministery of Reconciliation, and the power of loosing committed unto him. And the less that God doth inflict on us &c, the more we are concerned to impose on our selves such Acts, &c.’ [In all those you may observe the Catholick Doctrine so misunderstood, or at least misrepresented, by them, as if it maintained these Penal Works to be Satisfactions in rigid Justice, equalling, and compensating such punishments; and that, without any relating to, application of, or dependance on, Christ's Satisfactions. Filii hominum, duro corde, ut quid quaeritis mendacium?]

[Page 150] Are prevalent with God they say; though not, always, and for all such punishments (at least in such a degree, as these Pe­nances are usually performed) but many times, or for the most; either for averting all, or at least part thereof; But 2dly, When they are not this way effective, for the Reasons given before; yet do not such persons lose their reward, viz. The recompence of a future greater portion of Glory accord­ing to the measure of such Penances: all Works that are in this way satisfactory, being also (as commonly the higher and uncommanded Acts of Christian Virtues, and of Grace infused) in the other way meritorious.

9ly, Whether these Penances obtain such Remission of Temporal Punishment by way of Impetration only, or of Sa­tisfaction, or (which is the same) by way of meriting such Remission; and, if they Satisfactory, in what manner they be so, much-what the same things recur in the stating of these, as before of Merit. 1. Catholicks disclaim Satisfaction in such a rigid sence, as Protestants impose on it. viz. That it be a suffering, or satisfaction, that equals, in rigor of justice, the punishment reserved. 2. That it be an act of our own ability, not meerly of his Grace, to whom we offer it in Satis­faction. 3. That it be not a work due to him already upon many other accounts (though we were to have made him no such Satisfaction therewith) from our being his Creatures; and again his redeemed servants, and slaves; and, so all that we are, or can do, wholly his, See γ. 1. Though it is true, that out of God's great Indulgence to us in the new Cove­nant, all his dues are not called for by him, in any strict com­mand, or precept of his, made under the penalty of our Sin­ning, and being punishable, for an omission thereof; and so true, that, some Works of ours, that are very acceptable to him (and, amongst these, the chief of them which are ac­counted Satisfactory) yet are, in the former sence, indebita; and we are enabled by his Grace to give him a great deal more, than, upon any prescribed Penalty, he asketh us. Catholicks therefore 1st affirm of Satisfactory Works as before of Meri­torious; That whatever saisfactory worth there may be in them, it is to be ascribed not to our strength, but God'd Grace, purchased by our Lord's Satisfactions, and inhabitant in us, which is the Fountain of them. τ.

[Page 151] τ. Lugo, Disp. 24. §. 1. Licet opera nostra habeant de se illum ve­lorem & dignitatem; non tamen expiarent formaliter, & auferrent debi­tum paenae temporalis, si non accedecet acceptatio Dei libere acceptantis; atque ideo haec acceptatio de facto suit propter Christum. And afterward. Qui potuit (saith he) non acceptare; sicut de facto pro alique debito paenae temporalis non acceptat.

2ly, Whatever value they have, they cannot challenge, from God, the remission, or quittance of any such Punishment, but according to his own gracious Acceptation of them through Christ's Merits to this purpose; they being all due to him upon another account, as hath been said; and, if they were not so, he not being obliged, without a promise passed; to any equal exchange. υ.

υ. S. Thom. Supplem. Q. 13. A. 1. Non potest homo Deo satisfacere, si [satis] aequalitatem quantitatis importet; contingit autem, si impor­tet aequalitatem proportionis; & hoc, sicut sufficit ad rationem justitiae, ita sufficit ad rationem satisfactionis. Quia amicitia non exigit aequiva­lens, sed quod possibile est. Again, Quamvis totum suum posse homo Deo debet, non tamen ab eo exigitur de necessitate salutis, ut totum quod possit faciat. Bellarm. De Paenit. 4. l. 7. c. Nos de satisfactione illa verba facimus, quae (ut nostri loquuntur) ex condigno quidem paenam tem­poralem expiet, non tamen ex rigore justitiae. Satisfactio enim ex rigore justitiae duo requirit, ut satisfiat ex proporiis; & ad aequalitatem, nulla videlicet praeveniente aut intercedente gratia ejus, cui debetur satisfactio. Nos autem neque aliquid habemus quod Dei non sit, neque possumus ullo genere honoris adequare injuriam, quam Deo fecimus. Nihilominus tamen accedente gratia Dei, eaque multiplici, vere possumus, aliquo modo ex propriis. & ad aequalitatem, ac per hee juste, & ex condigno satis­facere. [A [...]iquo, modo, i. e. dum opera nostra, ut a Spiritu Christi in nobis habitante procedunt, quandam habent infinitatem.] And, — Dum Deus, qui omnia nostra sibi jure vendicare posset, non omnia quae facere possumus imperat. Lugo, De Paenit. Disp. 24. § 1. Comparing Merit and Satisfaction. Sicut mereri [in the sence that Catholicks use it] non est emere pro aequali pretio, aequalitate rei; sed est seminare apud aequi­tatem, & gratitudinem Principis; quare aequalitas, meriti, non est sicut precii; sed sicut seminis, in corde Principis faecundissimo. Sic etiam [Page 152]facere non est satis pati; sed imitatur meritum, eo quod debitor tendat ad placandum Principem & alliciendam ejus mansuetudinem ac clemen­tiam, ut acceptet voluntariam punitionem anticipatam, & placetur, ne exigat debitam paenam. Unde multo minor paenalitas sufficiet ad expian­dum debitum majoris paenalitatis. And Disp. 25. §. 2. Dico Satis­factionem aequalem non Mathematice (non enim requiritur talis) sed juxta regulam & dispositionem divinam, qua Christus instituit in hoc Sacramento tantam Satisfactionem Paenitentis, cum tali dispositione [in­terna] valere ad tollendum tantum reatum paenae temporalis. See the stating of Merit in Merits. α.]

3ly, Yet that these Penances, being the fruits of the Spirit in the Regenerate, and adopted Sons of God, have a super­natural dignity in them, most acceptable to him, See Merit, Thes. 3, 4. especially those done freely by them beyond the obligation of his Precepts: and so; the same which hath been said, of the worth of their other good works, See before, in order to their meriting, in some fence, eternal life, may, much more, be said of these, in order to their meriting, in the same fence, the remission of, or (which is the same) sa­tisfying God for, some temporal Punishment. (That is;) In such a fence, as these good Works may have a worth ac­ceptable to God, for obtaining from him that which is more, they may, for procuring, or giving satisfaction to him, for that which is less. β. A like worth to which no Penal Works have, that precede our Justification as to any remission of the eternal punishment; a pardon always received, before the production of these later Penances that follow Justification; which therefore are affirmed Satisfactions for the temporal Punishment, not for the eternal. Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 14.

4ly, But, in this satisfaction, or remission of the one, (Suf­ferings that are to be inflicted) for the other, (Penalties vo­luntarily undergone) there is affirmed no equality, in strict justice, of the later to the former; of the sufferings performed by us, to those remitted by God: but these, far greater, affirm­ed to be averted by the other, far lesser; therefore they are called Satisfactions in reference to God's acceptance; not Sa­tispassions (a just recompence of) in comparison to such punish­ments. υ. But, since God's Justice suffers no Sin to pass un­punished, [Page 153]nor Punishment to pass unsatisfied-for, to the utter­most, by some person or other, therefore, for whatever they are deficient herein, it is affirmed to be abundantly supplied in, and by, the Satisfactions of our Lord; applied for the re­mitting of these temporal Punishments less or more, accord­ing to the various measure of those self-revenges, and fruits of Penance, which Christians bring forth and offer to God for their release. As also, the same Satisfactions of our Lord are affirmed to be applied to the faithful, for remission of these Punishments, by the Sacraments of the Church, by ob­lation of the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood for them, by the Churches Indulgences; Lastly, by their own Prayers, though without any other Penal Works, as God pleaseth: God's Justice finding these plenary Satisfactions in his Son, for any Punishment, eternal, or temporal, the pardon of which his Mercy is pleased to indulge us without our own. φ.

φ. Concil. Trid. §. 14. c. 1. Sacramento Paenitentiae [one part of which are Satisfactions, lapsis post Baptismum] beneficium mortis Christi applicatur. Ibid. c. 13. Si quis dixerit pro peccatis quoad paenam temporalem minime Deo, per Christi merita, satisfieri paenis, ab eo in­flictis &c. Anathema sit. Again, Can. 14. Si quis dixerit Satisfactiones, quibus Paenitentes, per Christum Jesum, peccata redimunt, non esse cul­tus Dei &c. Again, Cap. 8. Dum, satisfaciendo, patimur pro peccatis, Christo Jesu, qui pro peccatis nostris satisfecit, ex quo omnis nostra suf­ficientia est, conformes efficimur. Omnis Gloriatio nostra in Christo est, in quo meremur, in quo satisfacimus, facientes fructus dignos paeni­tentiae, qui ex illo vim habent, ab illo offeruntur Patri, & per illum [per illius merita] acceptantur a Patre &c. Ubi vides (saith Cardinal Lugo, De Paenit. Disp. 24. §. 1.) intervenire merita Christi non solum, ut fiant nostrae satisfactiones; sod etiam, ut acceptentur a Deo. Again, Cap. 9. Corporalibus flagellis a Deo inflictis & a nobis patienter tole­ratis apud Deum Patrem, per Christum Jesum, satisfacere valemus. [Upon which thus Lugo, Ibid. Congruum est, quod hoc etiam bene­ficium non aliter concederetur nisi propter Christum, propter quem Deus remittit & indulget omnia, quae quolibet modo nobis remittuntur, & in­dulgentur. For, since God's Justice must be fully satisfied, by some person or other, for all Sin, and all its due punishments (Else why suffered Christ?) and the Satisfactions of our Penal Works are [Page 154]affirmed, not in rigid justice to equal the temporal punishment re­mitted; here also our Satisfactions are compleated by Christ's in the same manner, as our Merits. And what Cardinal Lugo saith, in De­fence of that Thesis; Liberari nos posse a debito paenae temporalis per impetrationem; vel merito congruo, may as well be said of our freedome from it by our imperfect, and diminutive, Satisfactions. Nostra pec­cata non manere tunc impunita [as to what they fully deserve:] Sed satisfieri plene divinae justitiae, applicando satisfactiones Christi propaena, quam nos debebamus solvere; quae applicatio obtineri potest aliquando per orationes. Sicut, nec manent impunita peccata, quando paena pro iis debita remittitur, per Indulgentias aut Sacramenta, vel Sacrificia: quia tunc etiam Satisfactiones Christi applicantur, quibus solvitur plenissime totum debitum. Suarez, De Paenit. Disp. 36. §. 1. Nostra Satisfactio Christi Satisfactioni innititur, non solum quia per illum habemus virtutem satis­faciendi, sed etiam quia nostra satisfactio propter ipsum acceptatur, & ut rationem justitiae participet, in ejus satisfactione fundatur, Antidiag­ma Coloniense de Sac. Paenitent. De hac satisfactione Canonica & Di­sciplinari semper docuerunt Patres, quod virtute sanguinis, & merito passionis Christi, auferat, aut saltem minuat, paenam temporalem pec­catis nostris debitam Christo Reconciliatori nostro, cui Pater omne judicium dedit, prorsus relinquenda est paenae remissio; a quo petere oportet, at obedientiam nostram [in our Penal Works] velit per meritum suum, patri celesti facere acceptam, & paenam promeritam misericorditer aver­tere. Dr Holden in Resolut. Fidei, where he endeavors to separate matters of Faith from disputable Question, 2. l. 5. c. Nulla prorsus est satisfactio ab homine quovis etiam justissimo peracta, quae Deo sit grata, vel quae sit alicujus omnino valoris, nisi per meritum Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Patimur quidem satisfariendo pro peccatis, sed nunquam satis patimur. Christus est, qui solum vere, & plene pro peccatis nostris satis­fecit ex quo est omnis nostra sufficientia. Nostra namque Satisfactio, qualis qualis, est & quo modo nostra est potius est quaedam meritorum Christi nobis applicatio, quam propria aliqua Satisfactio. And see Mr. Hooker in his Discourse of Justification, p. 62. quoting Panigarola, Lett. 11. And the Rhemish Annotations to this purpose. ‘We put (saith the one) all Satisfaction in the Blood of Jesus Christ. But we hold, that the means which Christ hath appointed for us, in this case, to apply it, are our Penal Works. And thus the other on 1 Joh. 1.7. The Blood of Jesus cleanseth us from all Sin. Whether Sins be re­mitted by Prayers, by Fasting, by Alms, by Faith, by Charity, by [Page 155]Sacrifice, by Sacraments, and by the Priests (for the Holy Scrip­tures do plainly attribute Remission to every of these) yet none of all these do otherwise remit, but in the force by the merit and virtue of Christ's Blood; these being only the means and instruments by which Christ will have his Holy Blood to work effectually in us. Which Point let the Protestants mark, and cease to beguile their Followers, perswading them, that the Catholicks derogate from Christ's Blood, or seek Remission [either of Sin or its Punishments] otherwise then by it, because they use humbly the means appointed by Christ to apply the Benefit of his Holy Blood unto them.’ [And from Generation to Generation let this be repeated unto them, In Testimonium, Illis.]

10. Lastly they affirm such Penances, beside the former ends, very effectual also for the full cure and eradication of the stains of Sin left in the Soul, and for the subduing of vicious habits, and preventing the like sinful Acts for the future by removing the occasions of them; practising acts of Virtue contrary to them; inflicting Pains equalling the Plea­sures of them, &c.

HEAD. XX. Concerning one Person, his Meriting, or Satisfying for another.

Concerning one Person's Meriting, or Satisfying, for another.COncerning one Person's Meriting, or Satisfying, for ano­ther, as to remission of Sin or Punishment. 1st, It is granted by all, that one Man's Prayers may impetrate, ( i. e. from God's Mercy by application of Christ's Merits to this purpose) Grace; Repentance; Contrition; and so Remission of Sin, of any (eternal or temporal) Punishment; Salvation; for another. α.

[Page 156] α. Daille, De Paenis & Satisfact. 7. l. 17. c. Caeteros [ i. e. Mar­tyres] vult [Origenes] peccata dimittere, non ulla pro peccata satis­factione, sed precibus, quas Domino pro hominibus morientes obtulerunt; quibus scilicet effectum est, ut clementissimus Dominus multos ad se con­versos peccatis liberaret. Jam vero aliud est prece aliquod beneficium hominibus a Deo impetrare; (quod Sanctis & vere fidelibus convenire satemur:) aliud ultrici Dei justitiae pro aliorum peccatis ex condigno sa­tisfacere; quod sanctis adversarii tribuunt, nos negamus. Spalatensis, De. Rep. Eccl. 5. l. 8. c. §. 18. Dispositio unjus non est, neque esse potest alterius dispositio; meritoria fortasse improprie potest esse, & impetra­toria, ut justi suis orationibus, & humiliationibus impetrent peccatori paenitentiam & dispositionem, ut tamen ipsorum satisfactiones & humili­ationes suppleant pro alterius satisfactionibus & humiliationibus; & sic ille alter dispositus ad remissionem dicatur per alienam dispositionem, & humiliatus per alienam humiliationem, est impossibile.

2ly, That one Man's Penances, Humiliations, Mortifica­tions, may have the same (or a stronger) effect, for impe­tration of these things for others, as his Prayers have, Psal. 34. (or 35.) 12, 13, 14. —2. Sam. 12.16. 3ly, It cannot ra­tionally be denied; but that, whetever worth, or value, such Penal Works have as to removing any ones own temporal Punishment, the smae they have as to removing another's, If his Divine Majesty please to accept of them to this purpose; and, that one man's Satisfactions are applicable also to ano­ther, is clear in Christ's, so applied. β.

β. Lugo, De Penitent. Disp. 26. §. 1. Hic modus solvendi patiendo pro aliis non repugnat ex se; cum Christus Dominus utroque modo nobis profu­erit, nempe merendo & rursus satisfaciendo etiam pro nobis, ut constat ex satisfactione ipsius, quae pro debito paenae nobis applicatur per Sacramenta ali­qua & Indulgentias; poterit ergo satisfactio unius justi alteri applicari.

But whether such Works are prevalent with God for others by this way of Satisfaction, or only of Impetration; and whe­ther the Satisfaction (excepting only that of Jesus Christ) for Sin, or its Punishments is not made by God personal, and cannot be vicarious, or supplied by another, is disputed in the Schools; nor, on any side, a matter of Faith. γ.