THE PREFACE.  
BEcause the Doctrines of the Church are, as by some wittingly mis-related, so by many others ignorantly mistaken; the Author thought it might be useful for the informing of those, who are withheld from professing Truth, only because they do not know it, not because they hate it, or prefer some secular interest before it, to draw up some brief Catholic Theses, as well negative as affirmative, extending to most of the principal Points of Controversy between the Roman and Reformed Churches. In which Theses he Professeth, 1 That there is not any thing wittingly denied that is affirmed by any allowed Council. 2 Nor any thing affirmed that is in any such Council denied. Nor 3 any thing affirmed or denied here, but what, if not in Council, yet in some Catholic Writers (uncensured by the Church) may be showed to be so; and all to be bounded within such a Latitude of Opinion, as the Church indulgeth. For the more evidencing whereof such Propositions, as he conjectured might be, by some less read and experienced, any way doubted of, whether acknowledged and received by roman-catholics, He hath confirmed, either with the Testimonies of approved Catholic Divines, or (which might have more weight with some Readers) the Concessions of Learned Protestants; leaving only so many of these Theses unguarded, as he presumed their own Perspicuity would secure. But here 1 The Author pretends not, that all is comprehended in these Theses which hath been delivered by Councils in all these Points, because this he thought both too tedious a Task, and needless; since the main Points are here comprised; and the intelligent Reader will discern, That many of those omitted may be readily inferred by necessary consequence from those here expressed; and since he, who in these concurs with the Church's Judgement, must needs so much reverence it, as easily in the rest to resign himself to it. Nor 2 doth he pretend, that no Catholic Author of good esteem delivers the contrary to any Proposition here set down (i. e. such of them as have not been the Determinations of Councils): For the Church herein allows a Latitude of Opinions; and he thought it sufficient to his Purpose to show, that none, to be esteemed true Sons of the Church Catholic, and right Professors of her Faith, need to be of any other Persuasion than this here delivered; and not that all are, or must be of it. And strange it were, for any on this account only to desert the Church, because he can produce some persons in it that hold a thing he conceives false or unreasonable; whilst the same Mother indulgeth him to hold only that which he thinks rational and true. For any therefore to gather a Body of such Testimonies (except those of Councils) against any of these Theses is labour lost; so long as he cannot produce some obligation laid upon all to conform to such Opinions, or follow such a Party; and so long as the Church equally spreads her lap to all those who think, or say, otherwise. Nay further, could he produce some Catholic Author of good repute affirming the contrary to something here said, to be the Doctrine or Faith of the Church, or something here said to be contrary to it; yet neither is this conceived to the purpose, unless his saying it is so, proves it to be so. For a learned Author, possibly, for the greater reputation of his Doctrine, may be too facile to entitle the Church to it, either as supposing it deducible, by some necessary consequence, from some Decree thereof; or as contracting the words of such a Decree to a more particular sense, than the Council intended them; or indeed had light, either from Scripture, or Tradition Apostolical, precisely to determine; and sometimes so it hath happened, that contrary opinions have both of them urged the same Church Decree (couched only in more general Expressions) as deciding the Controversy, their own way. But it is here reasonably desired; That such Conciliary Decree itself be produced and well examined; and those Authors put in the other Scale who are here showed to maintain, that to be well consistent with, or also to be the Church's Doctrine, which some others perhaps may pronounce contrary to it. It not being the Author's Design in this Collection to show that Roman Catholics agree in all things here said, but that none, to be true Roman Catholics need to hold or say, any thing otherwise. By this to remove out of the way that great Scandal and Stumbling-block of well-inclined, but misinformed Protestants, who apprehend, that such gross Errors in Faith and Manners, as no sober and rational Christian can with a good Conscience subscribe, are not only held and tolerated in the Roman Church, but also by it imposed. The Author hath also endeavoured in these Theses to descend so far to several particulars and circumstantials, as that the intelligent may easily discern them applicable to the solution of most doubts such as are material; and to the explanation of his meaning, where to some Readers seeming ambiguous or obscure; and they may serve them for a Comment or Exposition on most he hath written; wherein his principal Design hath ever been (Truth always preserved) Unity, and the Peace of the Church of God: a design which can never be completed whilst new Writings still succeed the former, till by the Divine Mercy these present Dissensions arrive unto their just period.   

CATHOLIC THESES On several Chief HEADS of CONTROVERSY.  

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

1. More General. Concerning the Church her being a Guide.  1. Catholics 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 Catholic 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 Tenants 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 Catholic may deliver her Judgement as a Guide (whether by Messengers, Communicatory Letters, or Councils) that consent of judgement, 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 ourselves.   

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

Concerning the Church Catholic of several Ages her being equally this Guide.  1. IT is affirmed: That the Church Catholic of every Age, since the Apostles, and consequently the Church Catholic of this present Age, hath the same indefectibility in Truth, and authority in Government, 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Church of any Age can never deliver any thing contrary to the Church of former Ages, in necessary matters of Faith or Manners.  
3. Supposing that in matters not so necessary, the Catholic 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 aught to acquiesce in the Judgement 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 Father's 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 Catholic, 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 aught 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. Catholics 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 ministered 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 showed 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 Catholic Communion, one particular Church, or Person, in any Age, Heretical will void the Catholic Faith.   

HEAD. iv So also concerning the Canonical Scriptures.  

Concerning the Canon of Scripture.  1. Catholics 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 Governors 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 Catholics 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 Catholic 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 & Canonicis suscipiantur. So Council Trid. Sess. 4. Si quis libros ipsos etc. pro Sacris & Canonicis non susceperit, Anathema sit. But these words by some imposed upon that Council, (See Bishop Cousin, §. 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. Catholics 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 itself, 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 showed that nothing in Scripture, as understood by Antiquity, is repugnant to them.  
2. But, 2dly, The sense rather than 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 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 expressly 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 numbered 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 judgement 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 Godhead, against the Arians and other Heretics; the number, use and efficacy of Sacraments; the Baptising of Infants, National Churches, the Observation of the Lord's Day, and even the Canon of Scripture itself.  
γ Dr. Field, 4. l. 20. c. We reject not all Tradition; for first we receive the number and names of the Authors of 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 Catholics, 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 Governors 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 blamelessly ignorant of what the Church hath defined) after such Decree, known or believed explicitly with reference to attaining salvation, which was not so necessarily formerly. 3. Yet notwithstanding this, Catholics affirm, that there are many divine truths which are not explicitly and in terminis delivered in the Scriptures, Apostles Creed, or express Tradition Apostolical, but only educible de novo by most necessary and 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 Truth's 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 showed (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 explicit Tradition Apostolical, and Principle that hath descended to the Church of later Ages most certainly thro' all the former, must therefore be showed 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. Catholics maintain a due Subordination both of Ecclesiastical Persons among themselves; viz. Of Presbyters to Bishops: Bishops to Metropolitans; Metropolitans to Primates, Primates to Patriarches. And of Ecclesiastical Synods, viz. Diocesan to Provincial; Provincial to Patriarchal, Patriarchal to General. 2. They willingly grant, That 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 itself, 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 itself from the Acts of the whole: especially in such things, wherein it can show in itself 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 Superior.   

HEAD. VII. Concerning Ecclesiastical Supremacy.  

Concerning Ecclesiastical Supremacy.  1. THE Catholic 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 denied, 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. Catholics persuaded therein both by the Scriptures, and Tradition do acknowledge; 1. That St. Peter was made by Christ Precedent 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 Custom, 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 merely Spiritual; so neither may such temporal Power in particular abrogate this Ecclesiastical Authority, though it were only conferred on the Bishop of Rome by the Church, so far as using a Jurisdiction merely 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 Judgement 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 Catholic, the absence of their Bishops hinders not, but that the representative of the Church Catholic in such Council may be still complete.  
2. The Presence of the Delegated Bishops of all particular Catholic 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, Let's 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 Catholic, now spread thro' the Dominions of several Princes of contrary interests, some either Bishops or Secular Governors that are averse from the meeting of such Council in respect of some Circumstances belonging to it; at least those of time, place, etc.  
3. For these reasons therefore 3 such Council seems to be unquestionably 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 Apostolic See; (without whom no such Council can be held) and by their Lieutenants at least, all or most of the other Patriarches, such as are in Being, and have some considerable part of the Church Catholic 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 Catholic Provinces; and more especially the Representatives of the largest and most dignified of these Provinces.  
4. In the Absence of some Patriarches, 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 Catholic 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 Patriarches, and of the universal Church, and accepted also by the much major part of the Catholic Provinces, though 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 Catholic. 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 hindered, but that the contrary votes of the other much major part would have stood in force and obliged all to obedience, than 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 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 Catholic, 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 Catholic 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, though such Acceptation proceed not so far, 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. To go yet a little further. Considering the present Condition both of the Eastern Churches, and of such Patriarches 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 Catholic, 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 Catholic 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 Church's consent) or of the most General that the present times will afford; or at least of a Patriarchal and lawful Superior 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 to decline Judgement, 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 Governors, and so of the judgements 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 Unity of the Church, and of its Government, and Succession, in respect of Seculars.  
§. 1 1. Catholics 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 Catholic is but one in many States.  
Again; That the Civil State, entering 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 itself to the Christian Faith. Nor yet the Church, entering into any State, take away any of the Civil Rights, or Authority, thereof; which is given to the Governors of this State by God; and which it was justly possessed of, before the Church entered 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 calling 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 Church's Unity, Uniformity, and Peace, throughout several Nations; And these which are instituted by Christ, or his Apostles; or are afterward established in the Church Catholic 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 merely 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, though 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 of the Christian Church in Ephesus; to Titus for the governing those in Crect; 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, etc. 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 public 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, though 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 Emperor Constantius was) the Truth of Christianity cannot be preserved in his dominions against Heresy; or where he Schismatical, the Unity of the Church's Communion cannot be preserved against the Sects, in his dominion. For Confirmation of these three precedent 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 Lord, such as the forementioned, [viz. To hold public 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 Prince's Dominions whatever.] They accordingly affirm. 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. 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, though 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 Catholic. Neither, can any such Person so introduced, though 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 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 Catholic Clergy to repair to for such Offices. So, had Novatianus, ordained and adhered to by three, or four Bishops, been upon this settled by a Christian Emperor in the Apostolic 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 Schismatic 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, aught 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 Catholic Church. And, should the Church-Governors de facto appoint none, because they see the possession of such place is by violence hindered; yet will he, who, in the manner aforesaid, invades such office, be as much an Usurper, as if he entered 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 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, though 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 Catholic; and as exposing the Church to all the divisions and factions, which the Lust of two or three ecclesiastics, 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 Diocese, 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 Catholic amongst the Metropolitans, and Primates in the several Provinces thereof, as amongst Bishops in the several Dioceses. 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 settled, 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 Patriarches 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-patriarches.  
§. 9 9 As for the Supreme Bishop of the Catholic Church, who, therefore could not receive this his Authority and Jurisdiction from any Superior; yet anciently neither was he 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 Patriarches and Primates, upon his professing to them if, need were, the Catholic 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 Patriarches have been condemned for Heretics; 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 Catholic.  
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, etc.) 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, though most grievously oppressed by Secular States, yet enjoyed this Government in Spirituals perfect and entire.  
And concerning the Obligation of the Clergy, also tho sequestered 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 & Parts 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 etc. quoting St. chrysostom 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 heinous 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 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, though 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. etc. 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 Bishoprics 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 Church's 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 authorising 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 though done by three Bishops, yet was the foundation of that great Schism, because Cornelius was ordained on the other side by sixteen.  
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 though 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 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. Patriarches 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 Patriarches 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. etc.) 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 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 Heretics, 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 Heretics, and had deposed such Heretics; 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 judgement 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 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 Heretics [refused to obey them in forbearing to teach still, and publish the Catholic 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 ruin, whensoever the Sovereign Power is seduced by Heretics. 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 christian's in a doubtful case, at their utmost perils to adhere to the Guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereign, though 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 itself to do any of those Acts, which the Church (i.e. those who are qualified by, and for the Church) are qualified by virtue 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 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 allege 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 Privilege 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 itself 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. Tailor in Episcopacy asserted (published by the King's Authority) after that (p. 236.) he hath laid this ground for the security of Secular Princes; That since that Christ hath professed that his Kingdom is not of this world, that Government which he hath constituted the 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 Republic) hath introduced, all them and all the causes emergent from them, the Bishop is Judge of. Such are causes of Faith; ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals, Subordination of inferior Clergy to their Superiors, Rites, Liturgies, etc. 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 public 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 Bishop's 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 ask 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 Catholic Bishops [in time of Arian Emperors] made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of Powers and Jurisdiction; that as they might not entrench upon the Royalty, so neither betray 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. Schism 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 Catholics 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 Kingdom 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, Schism 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 than 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. The interior habit, which enableth an Ecclesiastical Judge to excommunicate or absolve, or degrade, is merely 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 King's Dominions, and use the Ecclesiastical Censures by their own Authority, without the Prince; only they can use no Coaction by pecuniary, or corporal punishments etc. 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 merely 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 Clergymen do their Duties [i. e. not what he, but what their Superiors in Spiritual matters, judge to be so.] And Schism Guarded, p. 136. We have nothing concerning any Jurisdiction merely Spiritual in all the Statutes of Henry the Eighth. They do all intent 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 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 Sum 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 gainsay. 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 illata injuria sic olim conquestus est Doctissimus Whitakerus, etc.  
§. 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, though 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, though 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 judgement 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, though 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 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 entering 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 Patriarches, 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 Catholic 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.  
Next; what is said here of calling Councils without such Prince's consent, I apply to the exercise of all those particulars, which are allowed to be the Church's 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 alleged 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 etc. 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 Heretics.] 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 virtue of it, to do any thing against the Acts of the Clergy, in Spirituals; unless this Author seek some refuge in the Epithets, rectus, plenus, and illustris.]  
§. 23 After the former Passages of Bishop Andrews and Mason, See Dr. Hammond in his Answer to S. W. Schism disarmed, p. 203. who to the Drs words, (Schism, 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 Emperor's negative Voice in the Council; what I pretended I spoke 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. [Bianca 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 Customs of the Church; this certainly is an abuse: And afterwards saith, It is invalid, as doing wrong to another in those Privileges 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 Canon's 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 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 clerics in this case ought not only to dispense with Subjects for their Obedience, but also expressly 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 wholesome Exhortations to constant obedience, etc. [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 judgement of the Prince concerning the Doctrines of the Clergy, whether these command any thing against God's Word; a judgement 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 Lawgivers, 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 aught also to display the Colours and Ensigns of their Censures against Princes; who violating their public 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 Laics [Doth he not here, also include Princes?] to be of their Council, nor allow them any scope or liberty of Judgement, 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, 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 Emperor's Authority, to disturb the tranquillity of the Commonwealth [i. e. in their meddling 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 men's Persons or Estates [as also no more have they now, except from, and during, the Prince's 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, etc. [I subsume, the same making of Ecclesiastical Laws and Canons, the same Examinations, Excommunications, and casting out of the Church, etc. 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, etc. And when the Christian Prince or State becomes to them such, as the Heathen were, in his withholding or prohibiting these necessary things, then may they resume that behaviour, as was practised formerly, in Heathenism, 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 chief in all, or in some one of these three.  
1. His strengthening 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 Church's 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, etc.  
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, etc. 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 judgement 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. etc. granted to belong to the Church. But suppose the Christian Prince to be also Catholic, 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 judgement 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, though 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 Catholic 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 Canon's Laws [i. e. accompanied with a politic and coactive Power] the Prince's Confirmation was required. And Mr. Thorndike saith before, §. 15. That should the Prince forbidden 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 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 Customs and Canons, which we find made or practised 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 ask 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 Patriarches had belonged to the Prince. When also we find them excluding Princes, though Christian and Catholic, 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 taste [which surely is judging of the good or evil of such food; or judging in merely Ecclesiastical causes, in any way of opposition, or review of the Church's Decrees, I mean the most supreme that may be had in it.]  
§. 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 avaisti Laicum, [applicable to any Secular Prince] the 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 Bishop's 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 Emperor's 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, etc. And thus St. Athanasius, Ep. and Solitar. vitam agent. Expostulates with Constantius, interposing, as to the Church's 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 Canon's, in decernendo Principem facere Episcoporum, & praesidere judiciis Ecclesiasticis, which he calls there Abominatio Desolationis. And the Reverend Hosius Precedent 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 denied, (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 &c. 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 forbidden, it to be ministered 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. Meanwhile 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.  
Hitherto from §. 14. I have collected and considered the Protestant Concessions in Confirmation of the Church's Rights in her Ecclesiastical judgements, and other proceed 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 entering into the Church by the secular Authority opposed to the Ecclesiastical. Yet seeing that after this several pretensions 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, chief 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 judgement of which superiors 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 show the invalidity of them.  
§. 34 To this purpose then, I find them to allege 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 public 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 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.  
§. 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 aught 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 patiented 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 persuaded by the last Speaker, etc. 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 itself 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 aught, 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 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 judgements 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. etc. And Second Discourse, §. 12. etc. 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 judgement of a Laic 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 clear, who is in the right [and how can that be clear, in such high mysterious matters of Divinity to any humble person, the contrary to which is judged clear 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 though ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgement of 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 though 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' 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 lest cannot fail so soon thus, as the whole governing Body of the Clergy may. What? not fail in ignorance sooner than 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 than he, or as if he could judge what is Right in God's Worship better than 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 judgement 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, etc. may not an Ecclesiastical Power 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 Lawgivers, at the same time in the same place, reform one another, and the people subjected to them, according to their different Judgements? 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 Sacrosanctis 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 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 God's 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' 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 reform in, were; and justly are Princes blamed for any their neglect in this, the duty of their Place, and wherein their Secular Power is much more effective of a thorough 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, though these a greater number, than those professing the Catholic Faith; because the legislative Church-power remains not in these separated, and excluded, though the more; but only in the whole, or in the major part of the Catholic party, easily discernible from the Apostates, as were those deserting Moses' 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 reform all the Priests; or the Highpriest, who was always their Guide in matters of Religion; or reform the People against them, or reform 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 theirs; 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 Apostasy 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 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. etc. He opened the doors of the Lord, (saith the Text, 2. Chron. 22.3, 4 etc.) 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 Grandfather had begun, by their Assistance; and particularly by that of the Highpriest 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 learned God's Service, and the true Religion, to which he now so zealously reform 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 Apostatised under Manasses, in that Josiah would permit none of those Levitical Priests who had formerly offered Sacrifices in the High-Places, though 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 Catholic, whom the rest now being Extra Ecclesiam King and People were obliged to obey, in Spiritual matters; a remnant, I say, Catholic as appears out of Ezekiel, who began his Prophecy some few years before the Captivity, 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. etc. And 1. Chron. 6.8. or of Sadoc mentioned 1. Chron. 6.12. Grandfather 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, etc. Some Priests therefore there were thro' all those evil times whom God accepted and owned; and who stood firm as to the Faith; though many of these guilty of great neglect of their Duty, of Covetousness, and several other Vices; and particularly of undertaking to foretell Good things to a Wicked people, instead of exhorting them to Repentance; and of persecuting the true Prophets, who foretold things bad; which rendered them the frequent subject of the Prophet's complaints, See Jer. 23. etc.  
§. 45 This that all the Prince's 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 judgement of the Priest; many Texts may be produced, evincing the contrary; as particularly that Deut. 17.8, 9 etc. 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 authorised to give Sentence in a matter of God's Law without or against the judgement 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 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 installed Highpriest, §. 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 Ministry, See Exod. 32, 27. Deut. 33.8, 9 That the Highpriest should be suspected, or accused of Idolatry, the judgement 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 before Festus' Tribunal, he pleaded Not-guilty; and upon his Adversaries seeking to kill him, before judgement 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 ecclesiastics 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 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 Emperor's 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 denied 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 Subordinations of the Church's 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 Bishoprics, 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 Bishop's forecited §. 17. Observation on the 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 showed 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 Prince's knowledge and assent required only on this account relating to the State; that so nothing be passed in these Synods prejudecial to his Civil 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, meddling 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 Catholic 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 Prince's Act, or theirs 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 expressly 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 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, Archbishop Cranmers Trial. 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 Subordinations of Clergy, both Persons and Synods in the Catholic Church, which in several States is only one, for preserving of the Church's Faith and Government for every in unity; of which see more Head 6. Thes. 1. etc. 2 Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies, §. 24. etc. Consid. on Council of Trent, §. 9 etc. 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 is pretended) then why not any part of their office; and so depute Laics 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, etc. Lest of all therefore seems this committable to the Prince, either that he himself should perform it, whose Regal employments 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's 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 than they were received, and by their incorporation became Britannic Laws. Which as they cannot, or ever could, be imposed upon the King and Kingdom by a foreign Patriarch by constraint, so when they are found by experience prejudicial to the public Good, they may as freely by the same King and Kingdom 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 Prince's 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 merely 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, though 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 Prince's 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 Clergies exercising their Functions with a Coactive Power or of some persons among that Clergy, which the Church owns as Catholic, 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 privilege herein, which a Heathen hath not. And as such Privilege is most pernicious to the propagation of the Christian Religion, where the Prince is Heathen; So to the Conservation of the Catholic 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 alleged 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 Kingdom, 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 styled so, where neither Church-Definitions are found against them, much less where these found for them; 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 subtract 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 denied, 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 Proceed: 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 Privileges 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 than 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 Monarches 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 Catholic Gent. p. 101. compared with Schism, p. 107.) the one supersedes the other, and the same Right cannot be held by two Tenors. 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 Bishoprics 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 Governor 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, Governor also of one City in that Province, in respect of some other Offices, divers from the former; which Offices he may exercise over that Town only, and not likewise over the Province. Next suppose the Pope's 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 withheld, because on a wrong Title he claims somewhat more not due, or some other way abuseth his Office: No more than a Prince's Oppressions, or other misdemeanours discharge their Subject's 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 Tenors. A Kingdom 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 Tenors 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 Kingdom 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 tranquillity of the whole Body Politic. And Reply to Chalced. 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 subtract their Obedience from the Bishops of Rome (though 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 Herald But much more copiously Dr. Hammond: Who relies very much on, and frequently recurrs to, this Relief, for rendering 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 Archbishop or Primate independently from any Foreign Bishop. And p. 142. Thus certainly the King being the Fountain of all Power and Authority, [A Supposition unproved, and denied 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 freedom from that Obedience, immediately clears the whole business of Schism, as that is a departure 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 Kingdoms, 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 Schism.  
And for proof of such a Power in Kings he instanceth α. 
α  In the Emperor Justinian, §. 60 his erecting the Bishopric 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 Emperor's 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 Bishoprics, 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 Kingdoms; may join, divide Bishoprics, transfer Metropolitanships; or erect new ones, etc. 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 Patriarches, and their Synods established by the Church Canons (concerning which, see Consid. on the Council of Trent, §. 9 And The Guide, Second Discourse, §. 24. etc.) A Prince hath Authority to dissolve this, as to its obliging the Clergy, that is within his Dominions, by settling this Patriarchal Authority on one of his own Metropolitans, or Primates, which is settled 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 Schism, 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 Customs 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 Patriarches, 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 Custom 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 Schism, even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitans, and of the Authority which they have by Canon and Primitive Custom over them. From which, All I observe here is; That he chargeth Schism 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 Patriarches, and null former Ecclesiastical Subordinations. 1. 
Num. 2.  Either they must claim it, as a Civil Right; and then the Councils have been guilty of violating it, in meeting, and establishing such Subordinations without ask 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 Patriarches, 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 Bishopric of Constantinople into a Patriarchate next to that of Rome, without his consent; if this thing belonged to the Emperor's 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 urged 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 Emperor's Precedents 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 Emperor's Innovations against the Roman Bishops former Jurisdictions further than 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 practised 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, inhonorare, aut movere a proprio Throno 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, definite 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 Patriarches, by S. W. Answers thus. Answer to Schism Disarmed, p. 174. I, that meant not to dispute of such Mysteries of State, etc. finding the same things assumed by Kings as their Right, and yielded by the Church to be enjoyed by them [both which Catholics 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 inclined, either to inquire, or to take upon me to determine. [Not knowing, you see, which way safely to take. For if this Privilege 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 Privilege 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 apt to arise between States totally independent on one another, than in the same State united at least in one Secular Head. And 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 Kingdoms) 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 Schism, the more need of an union in some one Ecclesiastical Head. As the Roman Commonwealth, 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 Catholic are collected and joined.  
For 1st if it lie 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 Patriarches, when the Prince order 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 happening so seldom, and that on the terms Protestants require them, perhaps can be never: the standing Superiority, and Jurisdiction, not movable at pleasure of Patriarches 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 Patriarches, 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 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, etc. 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 Vicegerent 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 eos 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 Archbishop, though consecrated by his own Bishops, as usual, by sending him the Pall, and his deputing the judgement of Causes to him in his stead, Greg. Ep. 4. l. Indic. 13. 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 Privileges with the Bishop of Justiniana Prima.  
Concerning β the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Ravenna. 
β  As 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 Emperor's 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 Privilege that was, That John Bishop of Ravenna claimed, who (Dr. Hammond saith) was the first that publicly 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 Privilege, not singly from the Emperor's 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 Privileges. 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 Emperor's Rescript: but, first, Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia, which Dr. Hammond omits; Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia & antiquae consuetudinis ordine, provocatus are the Pope's words. But such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pretended to be received from the Church (Thomas St. Gregory saith this Pretence was false) no way fits Dr. Hammond's purpose of the Princes bestowing such a Privilege, 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 Church's 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. 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 judgement, 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 Patriarches, 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, inhonorare, aut movere a proprio Throno tentare, sed omni reverentia & honore dignos judicare praecipue quidem Sanctissimum Papam Senioris Romae, etc.  
To δ. The Kings of England transplanting Metropolitanships, 
To δ.  dividing Bishoprics, erecting new ones, exempting Ecclesiastical Persons from Episcopal Jurisdiction etc. Such things are denied 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 Patriarchies, and Primacies, and by consequence of the bestowing and transferring the several Privileges 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 tied in Canonical Obedience to such Superiors, and subbmitting to their judgement 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 ecclesiastics of his own persuasion, whom he may surrogate in the places of those others that gainsay. Remember the times of Constantius.  
Meanwhile if the Church's 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 Church's Catholic Unity be conceded to the Prince.  
This from §. 59 of their Ninth Plea; the Prince's Power to erect new Patriarches.  
§. 68 10. In the last place they say: That a National Church hath within itself 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 itself, and delegating its Power to others. To which, I think, there needs no further Answer; the Subjection of these Primates, or lower Patriarches 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 etc.) as also their Subjection to Patriarchal, or General Councils; in that it hath been ordinary to execute their Censures upon such Primates, or also Patriarches, when Heretical, or otherwise faulty.   

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

Concerning the Unity of the Church Catholic in respect of Heresies and Schisms and other intestine Divisions.  1. Catholics do hold; That one holy Catholic and Apostolic 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 Catholic.  
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 Schism, as renders them no longer any part of the Church Catholic; 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 itself any more, to be one Church with, or a part of, the Church Catholic, 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 Catholic. 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 publicly contradict the tenants or customs of those Churches from which they separate: Those, I say, who can plead all these things or themselves, are not thereby cleared from Schism; because their Separation may be, though, in none of these things, yet otherwise faulty (mentioned above); and though some Churches heretofore noted for Schism, have offended in some of these, yet it hence follows not, that those who offend in none of these are free from Schism. 3. Again they conclude from hence, that those, who refuse to conform to something, which the Church Catholic 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 Heretics would have been no Schismatics. 4. Lastly, That those who never were in the external Communion of the Church Catholic, yet stand guilty of Schism, 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 Catholic of the present Age [for either all, or some of these Churches, which they separate from, is so] and do separate from their lawful Superiors [for such is the Church Catholic in respect of any part] and so is guilty of that sort of Schism, which cuts off from the whole.  
5. They affirm, that the exercise of any sacred Function is to all Heretical or Schismatical Clergy, though 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 Judgement and Discovery of Heresy and Schism.  

Concerning the Judgement and Discovery of Heresy and Schism.  1. Catholics affirm: That all maintaining of any Tenent contrary to the known Determination of the supremest judgement 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 Catholic, upon what pretences soever of its erring, in faith or manners, is truly causeless; (the Catholic 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 Schism.  
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 causeless Departure, or Separation from the external Catholic Communion, and so also (being causeless) from the internal; Yet Catholics 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 causeless. So that all the Subjects of the Church are to receive that to be Heresy, or Schism, which this Judge pronounceth to be so. Else what none can know, and judge of, none can punish or separate from; nor the true extent of the Church Catholic, and its Distinction from the Heretical and Schismatical, ever be discovered.  
3. It is most reasonable, that in any differences of judgement concerning these, amongst Ecclesiastical Magistrates, or Courts of Judicature, the most supreme for the time being must be the Judge, to whom all aught to acquiesce. Else if a particular Person, or Church may undertake to judge these against Superiors, Heresy and Schism 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 Judgement; and that Person or Church, which contends for such Privilege at any time, gives great suspicion 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 causeless, 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 Judgements to this Church-Authority indicated in the former Heads.  

Concerning Submission of Private Judgements.  1. IT is conceded by Catholics, That no man can believe any thing at all, or do any thing lawfully, against his own judgement, or conscience; as Judgement 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.  
2. But notwithstanding this, 2ly, It is taken for granted, That one following his own judgement 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 Judgement, or directing aright his Conscience.  
3. That the same Judgement 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 Judgement 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 merely 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 Judgement in Spiritual matters to his Ecclesiastical Superiors, doth, in yielding it, follow his own Judgement, 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 Catholics, That every one ought to yield assent, and submit his Judgement (even when by plausible arguments of private Reason otherways biased and swayed) 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 some persons could be had; yet 6ly, If no more may plead freedom 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 etc. in matters controverted) will always be obliged to follow this Authority, though 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 Judgements, 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 Judgement in Spiritual matters, to such a one the use of his private Reason, in the Quest thereof, is not denied by Catholics. 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 Judgement 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 licenced 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 Catholics 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 Catholics 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. Catholics 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 Catholics 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.  

Next, Concerning the necessity of an explicit, or sufficiency of an implicit, Faith.  

Concerning explicit, and implicit Faith.  1. It is freely acknowledged by Catholics, that to some Articles of the Christian Faith, an explicit or express Faith, wherein the Article in its terms is particularly known, and professed, is necessary to all Christians, that have the use of reason; of what condition or calling soever. But to how many Articles such Faith is necessary, it is not easy punctually to determine.  
2. Catholics teach that all Christians are obliged, by what means soever afforded them, to acquire an explicit Faith, of all other Articles of Faith, or Precepts of good Life, which are any way either necessary, or profitable to their Salvation, so far as their capacities, or callings do permit, or also require them.  
3. That all Christians ought in general, or implicitly, to believe; that whatever God hath revealed, or the Church in her Definitions, or Expositions of the Divine Revelations, delivereth as matter of Faith, and to be believed, is to be believed; and ought also to be ready explicitly to hold and profess whatever is at any time sufficiently proposed to them to be such. And other implicit Faith, than the forementioned, is not allowed; nor other explicit Faith, than the forementioned required.  
[Therefore that Proposition [Haec est vera Catholica fides, extra quam nemo Salvus esse potest] as applied to the larger Creeds, that of Athanasius; or yet further, to all the Decrees of all lawful Ecumenical Councils, as in the Bull of Pius the Fourth, ought either to be understood not distributively; as if any Decree of any such Council unknown, and so not believed, or assented to, excludeth from Salvation: For, how few among Christians do know, or yield actual assent to all the Decrees of some one Council? And how can the Doctors of that Church require such Belief to all the Decrees, suppose, of the Council of Trent, a many of whom require it not to all the Articles of the Apostles Creed? But collectively, thus; That all that Fides extra quam nemo Salvus, is contained therein: and that extra eam totaliter sumptam, or si tota desit, nemo Salvus esse potest. As elsewhere, in the same Council of Trent, the Nicene Creed is called. Fundamentum firmum, & unicum contra quod portae inferi nunquam praevalebunt. Conc. Trid. Sess. 3. or to be understood distributively; but hypothetically, thus, That when any one knows any such Article to have been defined by the Church (wherein a non-culpable ignorance of the Church's Definitions always excuseth) he after this, in non-believing, or in dissenting from such Article, doth by this his Pertinacy, and Disobedience to the Church, as by other greater sins, persisted in, and unrepented of, incur the loss of Salvation.]    

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

Concerning Obedience required to Humane Laws.  1. Catholics do not affirm, from God's commanding Obedience to the Ecclesiastical and Civil Magistrate, and to their Laws, That, therefore all Disobedience to them, or their Laws, is a mortal Sin. For, so, all Disobedience to any of their Laws whatever, though 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, though they had not commanded it. As in matters of much consequence to the public, or our private, good, the Charity to our Neighbour, or also to ourselves, 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 virtue of the Divine concurring with, and corroborating, them in these particular Injunctions.  
3. Catholics 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 virtue of our offending against another particular Divine Law, prohibiting such contempt of the Magistrate. But (such contempt, neglect, etc. 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. Catholics affirm, That no humane Laws made in matters of what consequence soever, do bind beyond the Law-Giver's intention; so that such Laws, though given in matters of greatest moment, bind not under pain of mortal Sin, (I mean, as they are his Laws) if he doth not intent 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 Lawgivers 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, &c. 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 Lawgiver, in that Charity which he oweth to his Subjects, doth, or aught 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, etc.) And sometimes her Laws are so indulgent, as to oblige to a Penalty only, without any Gild laid upon the Transgressor of them.   

HEAD. XV. Of Justification.  

Of Justification.  COncerning Justification, whereby man hath Right, by virtue of the Evangelical Covenant, to freedom from eternal Death, and possession of eternal Life.  
1. Catholics 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 etc. 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 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, etc. 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.  
Montague, 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. Father's also are cited, etc. Bishop Forbes de Justific. Lib. 2. c. 4. Protestants unanimi consensu fatentur inhaerentis justitiae seu sanctitatis infusionem cum gratuita nostri justificatione necessario ac perpetuo conjunctam esse.  
Now first that our Justification consists not only in the former, but also in the later, Catholics evidently collect from many Texts of Scripture; which do apply our freedom 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 Baptism, 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 etc.] we should be made Heirs of eternal life. 1. Cor. 6.11. compared with the former; where speaking of the same Baptism 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 baptised] and by the Spirit of God [i. e. infused in our Baptism; by which infused we are said here expressly, 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, etc. 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, Domestics, Children, Heirs of God. All those Texts which attribute 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: 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 Protestants; 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 [Protestants] id ultro concedunt; quoting the Confessions of Calvin, Chemnitius Beza, Bucer, Chamier, etc. to this purpose. Imo (saith the same Forbes) multi etiam doctissimi Protestants▪ hanc ipsam sententiam secuti sunt, aut saltem eam non omnino improbarunt; quoting after many others, Spalatensis, Bishop Montague, and Dr. Feild: Whose words are, Append. 3. l. 11. c. The first Justification implieth 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 Catholics 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, than the first; [i. e. to be reputed only, not unjust, or not a Sinner.] 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 styled the formal cause of our Justification.  
3. Meanwhile, both the one and the other being the effects only of God's mercy, Catholics 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, mixed with several 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, saepenumero peccant, dumb 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 Catholics do not hold this inherent righteousness or internal renovation so absolutely necessary to man's 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 freedom from Hell, and life eternal: Namely, First by satisfying for our former Sins; and procuring for us this donation of the sanctifying Spirit within us. 2ly, What Catholics 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 ours, done by the mere 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 etc.) Nor again these dispositions, though 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 mere bounty and free promise) the Justification itself. 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 (though 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 Catholic Authors think, that this word Meritum, qualifying it with the addition de congruo, may be justly applied to them (especially since St. Austin, and other Fathers, have so applied it formerly (St. Austin, and other Fathers, have so applied 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, though by any worth of theirs they cannot merit, yet by virtue 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 ourselves 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, & communicate, 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 etc. 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 etc. 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. etc. 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 do or sufferings, may be personally, and immediately 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.  
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 dispense, 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 judgements 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 opportunity) of Baptism, 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 Judgements; 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 itself doth; therefore most perfectly agreeth with St. James. λ.  
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 Justify. 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 mere 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, & maxim 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 sequitur in homine spes [Mediante reconciliatione] consequendae ejusdem beatitudinis etc.  
5. This Faith therefore Catholics 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 Baptised 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 showed 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 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 sows 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. etc. 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 ours any way meriting of, itself 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 showed 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.  
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 ment 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 ment etc. 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 &c. 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 intern, sieve extern factorum. Cap. 5. §. 14. Proinde censemus omnem rigidorum Protestantium sententiam, & a veritate, & a charitate Christiana, alienam esse; qui assertionem 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 (though groundlessly, for want of Repentance, and the other requisites) persuaded, 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, which reasonably [from their belief] they ought to do etc. 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 baptised 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 Catholics 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 sudden 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 to walk in the Commandments of God, are not necessary to our second Justification, or the augmentation, progress, and daily perfecting of the same more and more, is a Calumniation; for they [the Protestant's] make the second Justification to consist in two parts. 1st, The daily well doing, whereby the righteousness inherent is more and more perfected: And 2ly, the daily remission of such sinful defects, as are found in their actions. Dr. Fern, Answer to Scripture Mistaken, p. 92. If they intent 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. Name [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, though just before, yet was more highly justified by that Heroic 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, etc. done only by God's assistant Grace, did thro' 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 Baptism not iterable, he make use of the Sacrament of. Penance for his entrance into it, wherein concerning the just value and virtue of Penal Works, see below, Head XIX.  
10. These are the Catholics 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 Tenants 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 weakening men's 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 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 ourselves. 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, &c. 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, etc. 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  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 not such 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 ourselves, or others of this Faith; necessary for their presence indeed; but not for their efficiency; as causa sine qua non, ad salutem non impediendum &c. but not as instruments, or conditions required thereto as our Faith is: thus destroying obedience itself, by taking away the chief motives that men have to it; and making them neglect any further painstaking, 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 merely 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 ours, how little soever, (and upon such terms we may guests 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 guests what a poor harvest there will be of good Works where they 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 fallen from Grace, to the State of Grace again, taught and used in the Church, is a thing merely 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) though of the same kind must not be, in these persons, of the same guilt, as in others: i. e. losing the Kingdom of Heaven; (1. Cor. 6.) and so these persons being indeed (though they persuade themselves otherwise) by such sins, fallen 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 Tenants 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. Catholics 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 parts, 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 ours done by Grace assistant, though having some worth in them, that can merit our Justification; so neither any Works of the already justified, proceeding from Grace infused, and inhabitant, though having yet a greater worth in them, that can merit the future divine reward promised to them, as condign; 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 appears in his answer to the Objection made against condignity; viz. the great inequality of our present Works (though 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 parts, & 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 Catholics 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, For the exhibiting to God an Obedience which in its true worth equalizeth, or (if you will) exceeds the reward; for Catholics 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 dispensed 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.) Catholics therefore affirm: 1. That, whatsoever worth there may be in the works of the Justified, yet since we are not sufficient of ourselves to do, or think, any good thing as of ourselves; 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 maus 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 Catholics 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.  
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 infinitely obliged to him [viz. in our Preservation, Redemption, Sanctification, etc. 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.  
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 mere 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, Catholics 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.) Catholics, 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, praiseworthy (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. 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 remembered; that no worth of the one, or the other, is from ourselves, as of ourselves; 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, though to a Service of little or no worth at all; but in respect of some valuable goodness, and worth (though this from God) also in the condition itself, to which he makes the promise of such reward. They rationally affirm also, that whatever benefit any one's 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 etc. 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 own, 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.  
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, etc. [and see many more later added by Bishop Forbes de Justificat, 5. l. 4. c. which I mention here to show 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 enjoin 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 Kingdom) 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 deigns 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) though it cannot have the nature of Merit [i. e. taken in a Protestant sense] (because the Covenant itself is granted merely 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.]  
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 Catholics 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 persuasion 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 Baptism 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 Church's 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 better than a true, though 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, Catholics affirm it the safest course, especially for those who have not attained to any great perfection, not to put any, or much, lest 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 remembering 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, though not attain any infallible certainty or persuasion, cui non potest sub-esse falsum, by reason of the possible defect of their judgement 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 infallible), yet have a strong and moral-certain persuasion, 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 rendering 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. etc. 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. though this witness (as also it's 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. Catholics 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, though 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. etc. And by Bishop Forbes de Justificat. 3. l. 1. c. p. 95. etc. 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 Catholic Doctrine is. 1. That all the Baptised are truly 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 repent of) they make us actually liable to eternal Damnation; after the committing of which (expelling us from the Grace and Privileges of our Baptism) we cannot be reconciled to God, nor restored to our former condition, without the help of the Keys of the Church (wherever 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, though Regenerate (abstracting from God's special Privilege) 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; and that the Regenerate, committing them, have always at least an habitual repentance of them.  

Next, Concerning a Possibility to the Regenerate of fulfilling God's Laws, and freedom from, either Mortally or Venially offending him.  

Next, Concerning a Possibility to the Regenerate of fulfilling God's Laws.  1. Catholics do believe, that some good thought, word, or work, may be performed by the Regenerate, and God's Commandments be observed therein, perfectly and without any contagion, or adherence of any Sin. But 2ly, that none can certainly know of himself 1. Cor. 4.4. when any work is so purely done. 3ly, They also willingly concede; that the most, or very many, of the good works of the Regenerate are not done without some Sin, or defect in some smaller Circumstances thereof, by reason of concupiscence, negligence, &c. and that no Regenerate person (abstracting from the Divine special Privilege) can for any long time keep all God's Commandments; as these Commandments are understood by any to involve the Prohibition of lesser (and those commonly called Venial) Sins. But 4ly, they maintain, that many have kept and may keep, them all (thro' the Grace given us by Christ, at our Regeneration) in the abstaining from greater, or those commonly called Mortal, Sins.    

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. Catholics 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, etc. 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] said quod fit, 1suo Ultra negativam partem: ut non furari, etc. 2suo Ultra actus externos. 3suo Unum aliquod mandatum. 4suo Ultra mandatum caeteris hominibus common. Bishop Andrews, Resp. ad Apol. 8. c. p. 196. Quis nescit fieri a nobis multa libere? & quae a Deo non sunt imperata, voveri, & 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 Catholics.  
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 own 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; 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 men's, Sins, and Disobedience; and that are also laid up in the Church's Treasure for this purpose. Catholics 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 cord, 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, Catholics (wherein Learned Protestants join with them) δ.  
δ. Montague in his Appeal, Licenced 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 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. chrysostom. A man may do more than is commanded [i. e. not as to fulfilling the whole Law, with freedom from all Venial Sin; but as to some particular Precept thereof, with freedom 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, etc. 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, etc. Again, p. 527. He allows Counsels; i e. freewill 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 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; &c. and that without sinning in such act; or simning either Mortally, or Venially, against such Precept, at another time; though 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. etc. 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 deuce for Preaching. Potuit S. Paulus ex evengelio victum sibi quaerere: quod muluit operuri, amplius erogabut. Ibid. p. 208. Nay further justifies Vows made in these Kind's, and a Monastic 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, though not in point of promise [he means promise annexed to a command.] And, That, though 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 though 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 deuce 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, etc. which for encouraging our best endeavours, are by the Divine Wisdom, 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 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 daily 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, Catholics 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 Catholics, so also is conceded by Learned Protestants. ζ  
Bellarm. 2. l. 13. c. Ex toto cord, 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, etc. 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. Austin 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 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] add 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 cord & 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 (Protestant's 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 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 (though 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 inferior 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 performs 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, etc. may be much inferior 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 freedom from Venial Sins.  
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 Catholics from imagining any acquitting, or recompensing of disobedience in one thing by Supererogation in another; neither is the laudable, though imperfect, performance of some Evangelical Counsels before Justification (whereby more easily to attain it, and the practice of necessary duties) reckoned by Catholics any work of Supererogation, or to be any way preferable 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. Austin, 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 Catholic Assertions concerning Penances and Satisfactions may be easily collected out of these Theses concerning Justification and Merit.  
1. By Penances Catholics 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 Penitent. 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, etc. 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 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 &c. 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. definite, 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. §. Add 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 own 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 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 kingdom of heaven.] Bellarm. de Indulgent. 1. l. 2. c. In bonis actionibus hominum justorum duplex valour, 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 etc. acceptable to God. The second respecting the Body; and including the several macerations, and subduing thereof, by suffering cold, thirst, hunger, hard fare, clothing, lodging, disciplines, watch, solitude, silence, etc. The third respecting the goods of fortune; but also those of the Soul, and Body, in order to the showing 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.  
γ. 1. See Dr. Hammond, in his Answer (maintaining good ; 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, etc. 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 prickling 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 Penal Works ordinarily used in the Catholic 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 &c. 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 Penitent. 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, etc. 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 Catholics affirm, that any such Acts may be reckoned penal and satisfactory, either when voluntarily undertaken and imposed by ourselves; or when enjoined us by our spiritual Physician 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 cheerful 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, Catholics 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 itself; as to the offence given to God by it, and our being resumed into his favour. 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 etc. Satisfactiones per jejunia &c, non quidem pro paena aeterna, quae vel Sacramento, vel Sacramenti voto, una cum culpa remittitur etc. 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 predispositions 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 by Catholics: as if all or most of them, were to precede every one's 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 public 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 Church's 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 cord 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 summa intentione dolere, ut certior sit paenitentia etc. 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, etc. 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. Dolour 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, & dumb 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 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, though 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 predispositions 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 etc. De istorum Confessione intelligo doctrinam Thomae [in 4. sent. 17. disp.] quoth confessio informis per defectum contritionis est valida, ita ut non sit iteranda; & erit eye fructuosa, quando ascendent adcor altum, ut habeant peccatum pro summo odibili & summo vitabili etc. 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, & inform. 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 (though 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 Catholics 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 etc. 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 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, etc. 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, etc. 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 it's 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 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 freedom from Hell, before the absolving them from such sins; and restoring them to the Church's Communion, herein mis-applied them. [Though that must be always remembered, 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 rendered 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 till some experience be had of their Reformation. And see Xaverius his Instruction to Gaspar, Rector of the College 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, aught 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 judgement, 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.  
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 etc. And,— Ut plurimum, long 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 Simo 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 Penitent. Disp. 25. §. 2. Non sufficere prudentem existimationem Ministri Prebatur (saith he): Quia ad causandos 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, Catholics 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 Baptism, as to some temporal sufferings in this life, (though not in the next); but chief, after a second by the Sacrament of 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 show 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 threatened 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. etc. 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 show 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 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 etc. 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 etc. 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] [though 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' 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, Catholics 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 Baptism, no temporal Punishment, at least in the next world, (of which see Council of Trent, Sess. 6. c. 14. Conc. Florent. de Baptism) where the person being now uncapable of meliorating 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 patiented and cheerful 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 men's death a warning to others not to provoke God's judgements 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.  
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 merely 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 ourselves. ρ.  
ρ. Lugo de Penitent. 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, Catholics 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 readmitted 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, & 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 etc. 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 rigour, 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 etc. Sed hoc totum nihil est ad mutuam compensationem: Nam, qui in hunc modum 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 ordinary pun, & 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 wholesome Discipline, to make us more wary of such Sins, etc. Or, when done in order to averting some temporal Judgement etc. And these afflictives, or exercises of self-denial, may be either voluntary, undertaken of ourselves; or, by advice of the Priest, that hath the Ministry of Reconciliation, and the power of losing committed unto him. And the less that God doth inflict on us &c, the more we are concerned to impose on ourselves such Acts, etc. [In all those you may observe the Catholic 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 dependence on, Christ's Satisfactions. Filii hominum, duro cord, ut quid quaeritis mendacium?]  
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 recompense 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. Catholics disclaim Satisfaction in such a rigid sense, as Protestants impose on it. viz. That it be a suffering, or satisfaction, that equals, in rigour of justice, the punishment reserved. 2. That it be an act of our own ability, not merely 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 deuce 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 sense, indebita; and we are enabled by his Grace to give him a great deal more, than, upon any prescribed Penalty, he asketh us. Catholics 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 Goded Grace, purchased by our Lord's Satisfactions, and inhabitant in us, which is the Fountain of them. τ.  
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 he just, & 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 sense that Catholics use it] none 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 cord Principis faecundissimo. Sic etiam 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 recompense of) in comparison to such punishments. υ. But, since God's Justice suffers no Sin to pass unpunished, 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 Church's 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 etc. Anathema sit. Again, Can. 14. Si quis dixerit Satisfactiones, quibus Paenitentes, per Christum Jesum, peccata redimunt, non esse cultus Dei etc. Again, Cap. 8. Dum, satisfaciendo, patimur pro peccatis, Christo Jesus, qui pro peccatis nostris satisfecit, ex quo omnis nostra sufficientia est, conforms 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 etc. 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 affirmed, not in rigid justice to equal the temporal punishment remitted; here also our Satisfactions are completed 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 freedom 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. Penitent. 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 resolute. Fidei, where he endeavours 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 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, persuading them, that the Catholics 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, etc.   

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.  
α. Daille, De Paenis & Satisfact. 7. l. 17. c. Caeteros [i. e. Martyrs] 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.