of God notwithstanding any secular force prohibiting the same must needs maintain by consequence that the Church hath Power in it self to hold all such Assemblies as shall be requisite to maintain the common Service of God and the Unity in it and the order of all Assemblies that exercise it Thus Mr. Thorndike § 16 Dr. Taylor in Episcopacy asserted published by the Kings Authority after that p. 236. he hath laid this ground for the security of Secular Princes That since that Christ hath professed that his Kingdome is not of this world that Government which he hath constituted de novo doth no way make any Entrenchment on the Royalty hath these Passages p. 237. he saith That those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the Republick hath introduced all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals Subordination of inferiour Clergy to their Superiours Rites Liturgies c. As for the Rights of the Secular Power he layeth down this Rule p. 236. Whatsoever the Secular Tribunal did take Cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are all Actions civil all publick Visitations of Justice all breach of municipal Laws These the Church saith he hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes these be indulged to it these by their favour then indulged but not so the former Accordingly p. 239. he saith Both Prince and Bishops have indicted Synods in several ages upon the exigente of several occasions and have several Powers for the engagements of clerical obedience and attendance upon such Solemnities That the Bishops Jurisdiction hath a Compulsory derived from Christ only viz. Inflictions of Censures by Excommunications or other minores plagae which are in order to it And that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the external Compulsory i. e. as he saith before to superadd a temporal penalty upon Contumacy or some other way abet the Censures of the Church P. 243. he saith That in those cases in which by the law of Christ Bishops may or in which they must use Excommunication no Power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away And p. 244. That the Church may inflict her Censures upon her Delinquent Children without asking leave that Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security And p 245. That the King 's supreme Regal Power in causes of the Church consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by God's law employed for regiment and care of Souls I suppose those he named before p. 237. and in these also that all the external Compulsory and Jurisdiction as he expoundeth 〈◊〉 before p. 239. is the King 's And lastly p. 241. he saith That the Catholick Bishops in time of Arian Emperors made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of Powers and Jurisdiction that as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray the right which Christ had concredited to them to the encroachment of an exterior Jurisdiction and Power i. e. the Royal. § 17 Bishop Bramhal frequently stateth the Primacy or Supremacy of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters thus Schisme Guarded p. 61. he saith All that our Kings assume to themselves is the external Regiment of the Church by coactive Power to be exercised by persons capable of the respective branches of it And p. 63. quoting the 37 Article of the Church of England where the King's Supremacy is expressed thus To preserve or contain all Estates and Orders committed to their trust whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in their duties and restrain contumacious offenders with the Civil Sword in which restraining offenders and containing all in their duty with the Civil Sword the Prince is willingly acknowledged by Catholicks the and the only Supreme he comments thus upon it You see the Power is Political the Sword is Political all is Political our Kings leave the Power of the Keys and Jurisdiction Spiritual purely to those to whom Christ hath left them And in answer to another Passage in the 37th Article and also in the Oath of Supremacy wherein the Bishop of Rome is denied to have any Jurisdiction in the Kingdome of England he distinguisheth between a Jurisdiction suppose to excommunicate absolve degrade purely Spiritual governing Christians in the interior Court of Conscience and extending no further and an exterior coactive Jurisdiction exercised in the exterior Ecclesiastical Courts the exterior Coaction of which he saith is originally Political and so belonging only to and held from the Prince His words are Schisme Guarded p. 160. Our Ancestors in denying any Jurisdiction that is Patriarchal to the Pope meant the very same thing that we do our only difference is in the use of the words Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction which we understand properly of Jurisdiction purely Spiritual which extends no further then the Court of Conscience But by Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction they did understand Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the exterior Court which in truth is partly Spiritual partly Political The interior habit which enableth an Ecclesiastical Judge to excommunicate or absolve or degrade is meerly Spiritual but the exterior Coaction is originally Political So our Ancestors cast out external Ecclesiastical coactive Jurisdiction the same do we They did not take away from the Pope the power of the Keys or Jurisdiction purely Spiritual no more do we And Ibid. p. 119. We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them and executing of them but with this caution that to make them Laws he means such laws for observance of which secular coaction might be used the confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a coactive Power to execute them the Prince's Grant or Concession was needful So that Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the Kings Dominions and use the Ecclesiastical Censures by their own Authority without the Prince only they can use no Coaction by pecuniary or corporal punishments c. in the Execution of them without his which is granted to him Again Vindic. of the Church of England p. 269. he saith That in Cases that are indeed Spiritual or meerly Ecclesiastical such as concern the Doctrine of Faith or Administration of the Sacraments or the ordaining or degrading of Ecclesiastical persons Sovereign Princes have and have only an Architectonical Power to see that Clergy-men do their Duties i. e. not what he but what their Superiors in Spiritual matters judge to be so And Schisme Guarded p. 136. We have nothing concerning any Jurisdiction meerly Spiritual in all the Statutes of Henry the Eighth They do all intend coactive Jurisdiction in the exterior Court of the Church We give the supreme Judicature of
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 Catholick 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 Catholick Writers uncensured by the Church may be shewed 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-Catholicks He hath confirmed either with the Testimonies of approved Catholick 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 Judgment must needs so much reverence it as easily in the rest to resign himself to it Nor 2 doth he pretend that no Catholick 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 shew that none to be esteemed true Sons of the Church Catholick and right Professors of her Faith need to be of any other Perswasion then 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 Catholick 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 hapned 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 it self be produced and well examined and those Authors put in the other Scale who are here shewed 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 shew that Roman Catholicks agree in all things here said but that none to be true Roman Catholicks 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 mis-informed 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 compleated whilst new Writings still succeed the former till by the Divine Mercy these present Dissensions arrive unto their just period CATHOLICK 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. CAtholicks do affirm That our Saviour's gracious Promises of Indefectibility Matt. 16.18 19 -28.19 20. Jo. 14 16.26.-16.13 comp Act. 15-28 -1 Jo. 5.20.27 Matt. 18.20 comp 17 18. 1. Tim. 3 15 -2 Tim. 2.19 comp 16 17. Eph. 4.11.13 made to his Church are so to be understood not only that his Church shall never fail or fall away as to Doctrine or Manners if she do her duty as some expound them But also that his Church shall never fail to do her duty for what is necessary to Salvation and that these his words are not an hypothetical but absolute Prediction that his Church shall never fail 2. That such Promises belong to the Church Catholick as a Guide 3. That this indefectibility of the Church as a Guide doth extend to an inerrability as in all Fundamentals in which if it errs it is no more a Church So in all other points the contrary Tenents to which are dangerous to Salvation For there seemeth to be no reasonable ground of a Restraint of our Saviour's Promises made indefinitely narrower then this 4. Amongst the several ways whereby the Church Catholick may deliver her Judgment as a Guide whether by Messengers Communicatory Letters or Councils that consent of judgment or those Councils which are the most universal as the times and places are capable thereof and which are the most dignified also with the presence of the most eminent Church Magistrates convening therein
have been still a Schismatick and an Usurper § 6 6. Hence also should a Christian Secular Power suppose Arian refuse to nominate and present any person to the Clergy to be admitted to such Office and Jurisdictions within his dominions save such as are Arians here the Church-Governors authorized by the Canons ought to take the same care for these Christian Provinces in such dominions in the times of Christian as they did in times of Heathen Princes in appointing such other Pastors over the Flocks of Christ there as will still preserve the Faith and Unity of the Catholick Church And should the Church-Governors de facto appoint none because they see the possession of such place is by violence hindred yet will he who in the manner aforesaid invades such office be as much an Usurper as if he entred upon a Chair already possessed when it is only by reason of him and such like that those men are kept out who might rightly possess it and it is to be reckoned the same delinquency as if such Chair had actually two Bishops § 7 7. They hold That to the Exercise of the Episcopal Function in any Province so that it may continue undevided from the Unity of the Church-Catholick and so that the Subjects of such Province may receive any benefit thereby two things are required according to the ancient Laws of the Church made for preserving Unity for ever 1. Three Bishops to confer the Order or in some dispensable cases one at least 2. The Consent at least non-opposition of the major part of the Bishops of the same Province to such Ordination and the Licence or Confirmation of the Metropolitan or yet higher of the Patriarch himself β it mattering little as to preserving the Church's Unity so long as the Metropolitans and their actions are subjected to their Patriarch whether one or both or the higher without the lower do ratify the Election of the Bishops So that any Ordination made by three or four Bishops of a Person wanting the foresaid Consent and Confirmation from Superiors tho it be valid the Order is frustrate from any Jurisdiction or lawful exercise thereof in the same manner as that of a true Bishop is frustrate when afterwards he is justly excommunicated as being given and received out of the Unity of the Church Catholick and as exposing the Church to all the divisions and factions which the Lust of two or three Ecclesiasticks assisted with a Secular Power seduced may please to set up § 8 8. It seems evident from Antiquity as likewise confessed by learned Protestants that as the Bishops could not exercise in any Diocess a lawful Spiritual Jurisdiction without the Metropolitans Licence and Confirmation so neither could the Metropolitan in any Province without that of the Patriarch γ. There seeming as great reason and necessity of this for preserving the Unity of the Church Catholick amongst the Metropolitans and Primates in the several Provinces thereof as amongst Bishops in the several Diocesses And therefore anciently these Metropolitans obtained also the consent of their Co-Metropolitans in other Provinces by the Literae Communicatoriae or formatae of those Bishops upon the sending to them a Copy of their Faith according as it was setled and professed in the several Articles thereof exclusively to Heresies in those present times and a Testimonial of their legitimate Election Which also may be said of the Patriarchs themselves who upon their sending the like Confessions and Informations received a Confirmation from the Primate of them the Roman Bishop and the other Co-Patriarchs § 9 9. As for the Supreme Bishop of the Catholick Church who therefore could not receive this his Authority and Jurisdiction from any Superior yet anciently neither was he conceived to have any lawful Jurisdiction unless possessed thereof by the designation and suffrage of the major part at least of the Clergy and Bishops of the Roman Province in later times for peace sake tranferred upon the Cardinals To which was usually added also the Communicatory Letters of other Patriarchs and Primates upon his professing to them if need were the Catholick Faith of his Ancestors and the legalness of his Election And if in latter times the manner of his Investiture with this Supreme Authority and Jurisdiction be not altogether the same yet since we find in all ages a major part of Christian Churches such as are guilty of no ancient condemned Heresy adhering to the Roman Bishop and Faith when as meanwhile several of the other Patriarchs have been condemned for Hereticks we may presume also that not only the Clergy of the Roman Province but all or at least a major part of the Governors of these Churches are and have been from age to age ready to afford the same Testimony to his just and Canonical Authority And these seem to be the necessary Foundations and Pillars that support the Unity of the Church Catholick α. α Bellarm de Rom. Pontif. 5. l. 3. c. Ex Scripturis nihil habemus nisi data Pontifici claves regni caelorum § 10 de clavibus regni terrarum nulla mentio fit Traditio Apostolica nulla Quando Rex fit Christianus non perdit regnum terrarum quod jam obtinebat Suitable to the Church Hymn Crudelis Herodes Deum Regem venire quid times Non eripit Mortalia c. And the same Cardinal quoting a Passage out of an Epistle of Pope Nicholaus Quicquid saith he Imperatores habent dicet Nicholaus a Christo eos habere Peto igitur vel potest summus Pontifex auferre a Regibus Imperatoribus hoc tanquam Summus ipse Rex Imperator aut non potest Si potest ergo est major Christo si non potest ergo non habet vere potestatem regiam Neither is any such power in Temporals absolutely necessary to the Church in order to Spirituals without the exercise of which power the primitive Church tho most grievously oppressed by Secular States yet enjoyed this Government in Spirituals perfect and entire And concerning the Obligation of the Clergy also tho sequestred to God's Service to the obedience of the Civil Laws of Princes together with their other Fellow Subjects Thus the same Cardinal De Clericis 1. l. 28. c. Clerici praeterquam quod Clerici sunt sunt etiam Cives Partes quaedam Reipublicae politicae igitur ut tales vivere debent civilibus legibus non sunt autem aliae ut nunc ponimus nisi quae a Politico Magistratu sunt latae igitur illas Clerici servare dehent alioqui magna perturbatio confusio in Republica oriretur c. quoting St. Chrysostome in 13. ad Rom. Christi Evangelio non tolli politicas leges ideo debere etiam Sacerdotes Monachos eis parere and parere not only in a directive but coactive way not only to be guided in their duty by the laws but forced to obedience of it But this Coaction to proceed not from the Civil but Ecclesiastical
Magistrate to whom the Civil in honour to the Clergy hath remitted it till in case of hainous Crimes after degradation from the Sacerdotal Dignity they are returned to the Secular Justice β. β See Canon Apostol 35. Episcopos gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos primus habeatur quem velut caput existiment § 11 nihil amplius praeter ejus conscientiam gerant quam illa sola singuli quae parochiae propriae villis quae sub ea sunt competunt Sed nec ille praeter omnium conscientiam faciat aiiquid in eorum parochiis Sic enim unanimitas erit Concil Nicen. Can. 4. Episcopum convenit maxime quidem ab omnibus qui sunt in Provincia Episcopis ordinari Si autem hoc difficile fuerit aut propter instantem necessitatem aut propter itineris longitudinem tribus tamen omnimodis in idipsum convenientibus absentibus quoque pari modo decernentibus per scripta consentientibus tunc ordinatio celebretur Firmitas autem corum quae geruntur per unamquamque Provinciam Metropolitano tribuatur Episcopo Can. 5. De his qui. Communione privantur seu ex clero seu ex laico ordine ab Episcopis per unamquamque Provinciam sententia regularis obtineat ut hi qui abjiciuntur ab aliis non recipiantur Can. 6. Antiqua consuetudo servetur per Aegyptum Lybiam Pentapolim ita ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem quia urbis Romae Episcopo parilis mos est Similiter autem apud Antiochiam ceterasque Provincias suis privilegia serventur Ecclesiis illud autem generaliter clarum est quod si quis praeter sententiam Metropolitani fuerit factus Episcopus hunc magna Synodus definivit Episcopum esse non oportere Sin autem communi cunctorum Decreto rationabili secundum Ecclesiasticam Regulam comprobato duo aut tres propter contentiones proprias contradicant obtineat sententia plurimorum I may spare the recital of any more tho the same is frequently iterated in the following Councils See Conc. Laodic c. 12. 2. Conc. Arelat c. 5. 2. Carth. c. 12. Rhegiense c. 1. Cabilon c. 10. Epist Synodal Conc. Romani sub Siricio Papa c. 1. and see what is said of this matter in Considerations on the Council of Trent § 10. c. See likewise the Cautions used by the Council of Trent Sess 24. De Reform c. 1. And Sess 22. De Reform c. 2. concerning the approbation of such persons as are nominated for Bishopricks by other Ecclesiastical Superiors and so the Collation of these Preferments upon them by the Pope § 12 This Confirmation of all Ordinations by their Ecclesiastical Superiors for preserving the Churches Unity is freely acknowledged by Mr. Thorndike in his Book of the Rights of the Church 5. c. p. 248. Where he mentions also some of the former Canons The fourth Canon saith he of the Council of Nice requireth that all Bishops be ordained by a Council of the Bishops of the Province si fieri potest which Council because it cannot always be had therefore it is Provided there That two or three may do the work the rest consenting and authorizing the Proceeding And this is that which the ordinance of the Apostles hath provided to keep the visible Communion of the whole Church in Unity But when among the Bishops of any Province part consent to Ordination part not the Unity of the Church cannot be preserved unless the consent of the whole follow the consent of the greater part And therefore It seemeth that there can no valid Ordination be made where the greater number of the Bishops of the Province dissent which is confirmed by the Ordination of Novatianus for Bishop of Rome which tho done by three Bishops yet was the foundation of that great Schisme because Cornelius was ordained on the other side by sixteen After which in Application of these things to the Ordinations made in the Church England at the Reformation he hath this Reflection Ibid. p. 250. Now it is manifest saith he that the Ordinations by which that Order of Bishops is propagated in England at and since the Reformation were not made by consent of the greater part of the Bishops of each Province but against their mind tho they made no contrary Ordinations And by the same means it is manifest that all those Ecclesiastical Laws by which the Reformation was established in England i. e. by these new Bishops were not made by a consent capable to oblige the Church if we set aside the Secular Power that gave force unto that which was done by the Bishops contrary to that Rule wherein the Unity of the Church consisteth But in other parts the Reformation was so far from being done by Bishops and Presbyters or any consent which was able to conclude the Church by the constitution of the Church that the very Order of Bishops is laid aside and forgot if not worse i. e. detested among them Upon which precedent it sounds plausibly with the greatest part among us that the Unity of the whole being thus dissolved by the Reformation i. e. by the Reformers either being against Bishops or being Bishops made against the consent of the former Bishops the Unity of the Reformation cannot be preserved but by dissolving the Order of Bishops among us The like he saith before p. 248. If the Clergy of that time i. e. in the beginning of Qu. Elizabeth's Reformation had been supported in that Power which by the Premises set down and justified in his Book is challenged on behalf of the Clergy this Reformation could not have been brought to pass Yet notwithstanding this Learned man thinks himself still secure in that Communion by imagining first that the Apostolical Succession of the governing Clergy which Canonically concludes the whole hath in several things violated Christ's Laws but quo Judice will any such thing be cleared See below § 37. And 2dly that in any such case the Secular Power may oppose their Authority the this established by the Apostles viz. So often as either the Apostles Ordinance 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
to the Catholick Faith as Heretical Princes for the Church hath as well need of using these her Privileges against Heretical Princes as Heathen otherwise the later may do her as much mischief as the former Next what is said here of calling Councils without such Princes consent I apply to the exercise of all those particulars which are allowed to be the Churches Rights and to have been exercised by her under Heathen Princes as in this Council assembled the making Decrees in points of Doctrine controverted and Canons for her Government The publishing and requiring obedience thereto from all her Subjects in whatever Princes Dominions and punishing with the Church Censures the Refractory § 22 And with these Church-Privileges and Practices not only as to Heathen but Heretical Princes Bishop Andrews Tort. Tort. p. 377. also seems well content Who in answer to Bellarmin saying the Authority alledged out of the New Testament to be given to Princes was to the Heathen who yet had no Primacy in Ecclesiasticals and therefore these places served nothing for proving such a Primacy grants neither Infidel Princes nor yet Christian if Heretical to have an Ecclesiastical Primacy over God's Church Primatum ad Reges infideles pertinere non probant these Texts Non sanc magis ad hos in novo quam ad Ahasuerum vel Nabuchodonosor in veteri Interim sit vel Infidelis sit vel Haereticus oretur pro co c. And Non id agitur ut Ecclesiae Persecutores Tiberii Caii Ecclesiae Gubernatores habeantur Tum demum vero Ecclesiae Gubernacula capessant cum conversi ad fidem fuerint fidem i. e. Christianam if Heathen Catholicam if Hereticks After him Mason De Ministerio Anglicano 3. l. 5. c. In case not only of Infidelity but of Heresy or yet if I mistake him not in any other eminent Defect of Sanctity denies to Princes at least the Exercise whatever remote Power he placeth in them of some branches of their Primacy Regibus saith he qui vel non sunt Christiani vel si Christiani non tamen orthodoxi vel si orthodoxi non tamen Sancti Primatus competit quidem sed secundum quid id est quoad authoritatem non quoad rectum plenum usum authoritatis quoad officium non quoad illustrem executionem officii None such therefore may execute any Ecclesiastical Primateship so as by vertue of it to do any thing against the Acts of the Clergy in Spirituals unless this Author seek some refuge in the Epithetes rectus plenus and illustris § 23 After the former Passages of Bishop Andrews and Mason See Dr. Hammond in his Answer to S. W. Schisme disarm'd p. 203. who to the Drs words Schisme p. 125. that the Canons of the Councils have mostly been set out and received their Authority by the Emperors replied That never was it heard that an Emperor claimed a negative voice in making the Canon of a Council valid which concerned matters purely Spiritual To which Dr. Hammond returns this For the appendage c I need not reply having never pretended nor seemed to pretend what he chargeth on me concerning the Emperors negative Voice in the Council what I pretended I spake out in plain words That the Canons have been mostly set out and received their Authority by the Emperors and this receiving their Authority is I suppose in order to their powerful Reception in their Dominions and this he acknowledgeth and so we are friends By Dr. Hammond's consent then A negative Voice the Prince hath not to reverse or contrary the Church Canons in Spiritual matters only thus he may be said to give Authority to them by causing a powerful reception of them in his Dominions Powerful i.e. by assisting the Church in the Execution of them with this coactive Power And elsewhere Answer to Schism disarmed p. 164. he grants in the Controversy of Erecting Metropoles That if the Prince exerciseth this Power so as to thwart known Canons and Customes of the Church this certainly is an abuse And afterwards saith It is invalid as doing wrong to another in those Priviledges he enjoys by the Canon § 24 Thus also Grotius Rivet Apol. discuss p. 70. well seen in the Imperial Rights not long before his death Imperatorum Regum aliquod esse officium etiam circa res Ecclesiae in confesso est At non tale quale in Saeculi negotiis ad tutandos non ad violandos Canones jus hoc comparaturs est Nam cum Principes filii sunt Ecclesiae non debent vi in matrem uti omne corpus Sociale jus habet quaedam constituendi quibus membra obligenter hoc jus etiam Ecclesiae competere apparet Act. 15.28 Heb. 13.17 Where he quotes Facundus saying of Martianus Cognovit ille quibus in causis uteretur Principis potestate in quibus exhiberet obedientiam Christiani And obedite Praepositis saith he etiam Regibus dictum § 25 I will conclude with the Sentiments of our two last most Gracious Sovereigns King James and King Charles the First in his Defence of the Right of Kings against Cardinal Perron p. 427 428. It is granted saith he That if a King shall command any thing directly contrary to God's Word and tending to the Subversion of the Church that Clericks in this case ought not only to dispense with Subjects for their Obedience but also expresly to forbid their obedience for it is always better to obey God than Man Howbeit in all other matters whereby the Glory and Majesty of God is not impeached it is the duty of Clericks to ply the people with wholsome Exhortations to constant obedience c. Therefore the Clergy are the Judges for Christ's Flock whatever Princes Subjects they be when the Prince commands any such thing which how it consists with another judgment of the Prince concerning the Doctrines of the Clergy whether these command any thing against God's Word a judgment not only discretive for himself but prescriptive also to his Subjects in prohibiting that no such Doctrine be taught to them by the Clergy I cannot divine unless there can be two ultimate Law-givers in the same matters over the same persons both whom delivering contrary things they may be obliged to obey Again a little before I grant saith he That it is for Divinity Schools to Judge How far the Power of the Keys doth stretch I grant again That Clericks both may and ought also to display the Colours and Ensigns of their Censures against Princes who violating their publick and solemn Oath The King speaks of Christian Princes Do raise and make open War against Jesus Christ he means in maintaining some Heresy and opposing his Church I grant yet again that in this case they need not admit Laicks Doth he not here also include Princes to be of their Council nor allow them any scope or liberty of Judgment yet all this doth not hinder Prince nor People from taking care of the preservation of their own
Heathen Emperors even against their frequent Edicts yet which could not then have been lawfully so used if any of these had encorached on Civil Rights in any of which Civil Rights the Heathen Prince might claim as much lawful Power as the Christian can And also which we find still continued by the Church under Christian Emperors without asking their leave to Decree such things or substituting their Decrees to their Authority or depending on their consent only with humbly desiring their assistance yet so as without it resolved to proceed in the Execution thereof as under Heathen of which we have many Experiments under the Christian Emperors when these Arian yet which things the Church could not lawfully have done were any of these entrenching upon the Princes Right now at least when Christian For Example the 6th Canon of Nice and 5th Canon of Constantinopolitan Council and 3d 4th 7th 17th Canon of Concil Sardic concerning the Subordinations and Appeals of Clergy would have been an usurpation of an unjust Authority if the Subordination of Episcopal Sees and Erecting of Patriarchs had belonged to the Prince When also we find them excluding Princes tho Christian and Catholick either from the judging in matters of Faith and from prohibiting here that any such Spiritual Food to use Bishop Andrews Expression Resp ad Apol. p. 332. should be set before their Subjects of which themselves first did not like the tast which surely is judging of the good or evil of such food or judging in meerly Ecclesiastical causes in any way of opposition or review of the Churches Decrees I mean the most supreme that may be had in it § 31 For these review the Canons mentioned but now and see that much noted Expostulation of St. Ambrose 2. l. Epist. 13. ad Valentin with the Emperor Valentinian presuming to examine Church Controversies and calling them before his Tribunal Quando audisti Clementissime Imperator in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicasse Not Quando audisti imberbem necdum baptizatum ex matris arbitrio pendentem as Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. c. 1. p. 29. and others explain it but Quando auaisti Laicum applicable to any Secular Prince de Episcopo judicasse or if Bishop Andrews will dedisse idoneos cognitores i. e. if they such as Valentinian shall choose for idoneos if these chosen be not Bishops or Bishops of Valentinian's appointment and not his Canonical Superiors but then these Canonical Superiors are given for the Bishops Judges not by Vulentinian but by the Church But else who cannot see clearly that dare idoneos cognitores i. e. such as the Emperor thinks fit which Bishop Andrews pleads for as the Emperors right and ipse Imperator judicare which St. Ambrose denies comes all to one The same Father goes on Quis est qui abnuat in causa fidei in causa in-quam fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare Pater tuus vir Deo favente maturioris aevi dicebat Non est meum judicare inter Episcopos c. And thus St. Athanasius Ep. and Solitar vitam agent Expostulates with Constantius interposing as to the Churches Definitions about Arianisme and her Canons about judging and censuring of Bishops opposing such Bishops as he took for Enemies of the Divine Truth and countenancing those inferior Ecclesiastical Synods which he fancied to be in the right against the Superior and against the Canons Quando a condito aevo auditum est quod judicium Ecclesiae authoritatem suam ab Imperatore accepit aut quando unquam hoc a small number of Bishops joined with Constantius pro judicio agnitum est Plurimae ante-hac Synodi fuere multa judicia Ecclesiae habita sunt Sed neque Patres â—istiusmodi res Principi persuadere conati sunt nec Princeps se in rebus Ecclesiasticis curicsum praehuit And see his complaints following That he did abrogare Canones in decernendo Principem facere Episcoporum praesidere judiciis Ecclesiasticis which he calls there Abominatio Desolationis And the Reverend Hosius President in the Council of Nice writes to this Prince on the same manner Ibid. p. 456. Reformida diem Judicit ne te misceas Ecclesiasticis neque nobis in hoc genere praecipe sed potius ea a nobis disce Tibi Deus imperium commisit nobis quae sunt Ecclesiae concredidit neque igitur fas est nobis in terris imperium tenere neque tu thymiamatum sacrorum potestatem habes Imperator Nefas est enim as Theodosius see Conc. Ephesin writ to the 3d General Council when he sent Candidianus thither for the Preservation of Peace and Order but not ut cum quaestionibus controversiis quae circa fidei dogmata incidunt quicquam commune haberet qui Sanctissimorum Episcoporum Catalogo ascriptus non est illum Ecclesiastieis negotiis consultationibus sese immiscere § 32 Where note that the Contest of these Bishops with these Emperors is for their judging these Ecclesiastical matters where they had no power to judge not for judging them when having a lawful power not rightly for this later these Princes would easily have denyed as all secular Princes that oppose the Church do but could not so the former And who doth not see which is safer to trust the Bishop or Princes with the last Cognizance of Divine things And how much it concerns Christianity that Princes be not made as Bishop Andrews would have them Resp ad Bell. Apol. p. 332 the Discussers of the Clergy's Definitions whether contra legem Christi and the last Tasters of the Food prepared by the Pastors for Christ's Sheep that as this appears to them sweet or bitter good or bad so they may allow or forbid it to be ministred to their Subjects Constantius was the first of the Christian Emperors that assumed this pregustation and that he took for sweet and good proved very Poison to his Subjects and at last ended in Mahometanisme Mean-while no doubt but Princes may assist all the Churches Consults with their secular power may call them preside in them for keeping of Order restraining the Tumultuous and Refractory and seeing that particulars perform what the whole declares to be their duty as the only Supreme's there and elsewhere of all coactive Power This Right none can deny them Hitherto from § 14. I have collected and considered the Protestant Concessions in Confirmation of the Church's Rights in her Ecclesiastical judgments and other proceedings in pure Spirituals which are declared to be independent on and unrepeable by the secular power and I have given you greater store of them than at first I intended § 33 Now by these their Concessions one would think the door were shut fast enough against any pretended Reformation at any time entring into the Church by the secular Authority opposed to the Ecclesiastical Yet seeing that after this several pretentions are made and that not only
by others but the same Authors as it were unhappily distracted and divided between two powerful Leaders Interest and Truth to bring in Alterations in Religion against the standing Church Authority chiefly by this way namely a Superintendency or Supremacy therein of the secular power either proceeding against all or at most joined with some inferior against the superior Clergy or some lesser against a much major part the judgment of which superior's and major part do canonically conclude the whole I think it necessary in this a matter of so great consequence to gather all those Pleas and Defences of any weight which I have met with in these Writers whereon they build the lawfulness of their Reformation by the secular Arm and to shew the invalidity of them § 34 To this purpose then I find them to alledge on the other side as if they had forgot all they had already conceded See Dr. Fern Answer to Champny p. 300. That the secular Sovereign Power is to be satisfied or as it is there § 21. to have it by Demonstration of Truth evidenced to him that what is propounded as Faith and Worship is according to the Law of Christ before he use or apply his Authority to the publick establishment of it Ibid. p. 294. And this in respect of his duty to God whose Laws and Worship he is bound to establish by his own Laws within his Dominions and is accountable for it if he do it amiss Thus Dr. Fern. Well But may the Clergy at least publish that Faith and Worship which they judge to be according to the Law of Christ in his 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 ought to be his Judge but those that are against it Yet still some reason were there in this if the Prince could always be certain in his Evidence so as not to mistake i. e. to think something evidenced to him when indeed it is not and again to think other things not sufficiently evidenced when they are so there were less hazard in leaving Church matters thus to his disposal But since things are much otherwise and evidencing Truths to any one by reason of different Understandings Education Passions and Interest is a thing very casual so that what is easily evidenceable to another may happen not to be so to the Sovereign Power when not patient enough to be informed when misled and prepossessed by a Faction when not so capable as some others by defect of nature or learning and facile to be perswaded by the last Speaker c. to what an uncertain and mutable Condition are Church Affairs reduced when the Function of the Clergy depends on such Evidences made to the Prince 2. § 36 Next they urge That in regard that the Clergy may many ways fail and miscarry in delivering Christ's Laws and the Truth of the Gospel If in matters already determined by our Lord and his Apostles or Laws given to the Church by injury of time the Practice become contrary to the Law the Sovereign Power being bound to protect Christianity is bound to employ it self in giving strength first to that which is ordained by our Lord and his Apostles By consequence if those with whom the Power of the Church is trusted i.e. that Body of the Clergy whose Acts conclude the whole else if only some other Clergy miscarry this Body serves the Prince for their correction shall hinder the restoring of such Laws the Sovereign Power may and ought by way of penalty to such persons to suppress their power that so it may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the superior Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles Thus Mr. Thorndike Rights of the Church p. 273. § 37 Now here to omit that such suppositions and fears that the Clergy taken in the largest capacity and supremest judgments to which the Prince is to repair when lower are suspected shall fail at any time in the delivering to Christians all necessary Truths are groundless of which see what hath been said in the first Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies § 6. c. And Second Discourse § 12. c. what reasonable man is there hearing this that will not presently ask Who shall judge whether that be indeed a Law ordained by our Lord or his Apostles which the Prince would introduce or restore and which the Succession of the Clergy opposeth Which Clergy surely will never confess such to be a Law of our Lord but always will profess the contrary Nay will say That the Succession of the Clergy
By the Acts of some pious Emperors cassating the Decrees of some Ecclesiastical Synods as particularly Theodosius the Decrees of the second Ephesine Council 3. ε. ε By many precedents of later Christian Princes and amongst them the Kings of England before Henry the Eighth vindicating such Rights of Princes against the Pope But indeed none of these well examined will bear the weight they charge on them To α. The first Instance which is the main To α. Habuerunt Reges § 43 saith Bishop Andrews Tort. Tort. p. 379. in vetere Testamento primatum suum atque inde Nervi lacerti causae nostrae in novo autem deteriore jure non sunt It is willingly granted 1. That Princes may reform and that as Supremes in the exercise of their Civil Power in matters of Faith and Religion 2. May reform as Bishop Andrews would have it Ibid. p. 365. Citra Declarationem Ecclesiae without any Declaration of the Church at that time in Doctrines of the Church known and undisputed and formerly declared as those things the Kings of Judah reformed in were and justly are Princes blamed for any their neglect in this the duty of their Place and wherein their Secular Power is much more effective of a thorow Reformation than the Priest's 3. May reform the Clergy too such as sound in the Faith neglect their Duty or also are fallen from that Faith which is taught by that Church that is the Canonical Judge of such Controversies and Princes in punishing such Clergy are to be accounted Assistants to the Church 4. May reform this Clergy tho these a greater number than those professing the Catholick Faith because the legislative Church-power remains not in these separated and excluded tho the more but only in the whole or in the major part of the Catholick party easily discernable from the Apostates as were those deserting Moses's Laws and changing the former Divine Service and but a few at the first Only it is contended that never may Princes so reform against that Body of the Clergy which is the Canonical Judge of Controversies in matters of Faith nor can it beproved that the Godly Kings of Judah did so either that they reformed all the Priests or the High-Priest who was always their Guide in matters of Religion or reformed the People against them or reformed the People at least without them § 44 The chief Reformations were made by David Jehosophat Hezekiah and Josiah And in all these we find an Orthodox Clergy Co-adjutors and Con-reformers and the Prince rectifying nothing in them but with them and if the King's Actions appear in the Book of Kings or Chronicles more set forth than their's it is because it is an History of the Acts of the Kings not of the Priests When after the flourishing times of the Church under David and Solomon in Jeroboam's Reign Israel fell away yet the Priests and Levites revolted not with the People but leaving their Cities and Possessions went over to Judah See 2. Chron. 11.13 14. 13.9 15.9 and new Priests were made by Jeroboam for his new Worship Afterward we find these Priests and Levites assisting Jehosaphat in his Reformation 2. Chron. 17.7 8. and 19.8 9 10. In the times of Ahaz's Apostacy these Aaronical Priests were excluded the Doors of the house of our Lord shut up 2. Chron. 28.24 and new Priests not descended from Aaron called Chemarim consecrated with many Sacrifices and ordained for the new idolatrous Worship of whom see 2. King 23.5 Zeph. 1.4 Hos 10.5 Ezech. 44.8 To whom I will not deny but that some also of Aaron's race joined themselves But after this we find Hezekiah's Reformation in the very beginning of his Reign assisted with the Orthodox Clergy 2. Chron. 29.11 12. c. He opened the doors of the Lord saith the Text 2. Chron. 22.3 4 c. and brought in the Priests and the Levites viz. whom Ahaz had excluded not long before Afterwards these Priests of the Lord being excluded again from officiating in a greater persecution of Manasses Yet by him at last repenting we find them also restored and officiating in the Temple before Josiah's time 2. Chron. 33.16 And in the next Chapter 2. Chron. 34. Josiah perfected the Reformation which his Grand-father had begun by their Assistance and particularly by that of the High-Priest Hilkiah who also found in the Temple the Book of the Law this in those times at least entire being very rare and communicated it to the pious Prince who had neither seen it nor heard it read before this Eighteenth Year of his Reign and therefore must formerly have learnt God's Service and the true Religion to which he now so zealously reformed the People not from the Scriptures but from the Priests Neither were any of those Priests and Levites that assisted King Josiah such as had before Apostatiz'd under Manasses in that Josiah would permit none of those Levitical Priests who had formerly offered Sacrifices in the High-Places tho these to the God of Israel afterward to officiate at the Lord's Altar in Jerusalem but only indulged them their Diet with the rest of the Priests See 2. King 23.7.9 This Good King Josiah was the last Reformer And if the Clergy after this fell away in a much greater number so did the Princes too much more irrecoverably But in those times also when it is said 2. Chron. 36.14 That all i.e. very many as it is not unusual in Scripture of the chief of the Priests and of the People transgressed very much after all the abominations of the Heathen yet a remnant still there was that remained Catholick whom the rest now being Extra Ecclesiam King and People were obliged to obey in Spiritual matters a remnant I say Catholick as appears out of Ezekiel who began his Prophecy some few years before the Captivity where Ch. 44.15 The Lord having condemned the lapsed Priests or Levites to lower service saith of these But the Priests the Levites the Sons of Zadoc either of Zadoc mentioned 1. King 2.35 c. And 1. Chron. 6.8 or of Sadoc mentioned 1. Chron. 6.12 Grand-father to Hilkiah the High Priest in Josiah's time that kept the charge of my Sanctuary when the Children of Israel went astray from me they shall come near to me to minister unto me c. Some Priests therefore there were thro all those evil times whom God accepted and owned and who stood firm as to the Faith tho many of these guilty of great neglect of their Duty of Covetousness and several other Vices and particularly of undertaking to foretel Good things to a Wicked people instead of exhorting them to Repentance and of persecuting the true Prophets who foretold things bad which rendred them the frequent subject of the Prophet's complaints See Jer. 23. c. § 45 This that all the Princes Reformations in the State of Judah that are instanced-in were done with the Priest's consent and assistance none against them And if instead
forementioned is not allowed nor other explicite 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 Oecumenical 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. CAtholicks do not affirm from God's commanding Obedience to the Ecclesiastical and Civil Magistrate and to their Laws That therefore all Dis-obedience to them or their Laws is a mortal Sin For so all Dis-obedience to any of their Laws whatever tho never so light for their matter would be mortal Sin 2. It is manifest that many times the matter which these Magistrates command is antecedently our duty in obedience to some Divine Law under Penalty of Mortal Sin tho they had not commanded it As in matters of much consequence to the publick or our private good the Charity to our Neighbour or also to our selves that is commanded by God's Law requires that which the Magistrate also exacts of us In such cases therefore there may be a great and mortal Sin committed in dis-obeying the Ecclesiastical or Civil Laws but this by vertue of the Divine concurring with and corroborating them in these particular Injunctions 3. Catholicks affirm That the Breach of a humane Law made in a thing that is left indifferent by the Divine out of contempt may be a greater Sin than breaking one of the Divine Precepts out of Infirmity but this is also by vertue of our offending against another particular Divine Law prohibiting such contempt of the Magistrate But such contempt neglect c. set aside that a much greater guilt is ordinarily contracted from the breach of a Divine than only an humane command both from the greater necessity and benefit in general of the matter of the Laws Divine and from the supreme Dignity and Majesty of the immediate Legislator 4. Catholicks affirm That no humane Laws made in matters of what consequence soever do bind beyond the Law-Giver's intention so that such Laws tho given in matters of greatest moment bind not under pain of mortal Sin I mean as they are his Laws if he doth not intend them to do so In whose Power since it is to lay no obligation so not to lay the greatest 5. That whatever obligation to Sin such Laws may have from the Law-givers intention yet that in some Circumstances they may not bind at all as the Divine do as in Periculo mortis cum pergravi damno aut infamia for quod valde difficile moraliter impossibile and to Impossibles Laws bind not I say if the thing commanded appear not of a greater consequence than such private damage nor hath been expressed by the Magistrate to be esteemed so Otherwise it is presumed that the Law-Giver in that Charity which he oweth to his Subjects doth or ought to pass his Laws without any intention that they should bind under Sin in such cases 6. Most of the Church's Laws are passed without any express Declaration of her Subjects incurring mortal Sin in the Breach of them yet this rationally collected by her Doctors from the great consequence of the matter commanded the heavy punishment annexed c. And sometimes her Laws are so indulgent as to oblige to a Penalty only without any Guilt laid upon the Transgressor of them HEAD XV. Of Justification Of Justification COncerning Justification whereby man hath Right by vertue of the Evangelical Covenant to freedome from eternal Death and possession of eternal Life 1. Catholicks declare That by Justification they mean both God's pronouncing or reputing Man just or not unjust i. e. freed from his wrath and from punishment due to the unjust by God's free remission of all his former Sins And 2ly God's making and so reputing him just or holy by habitual Grace infused or by inherent righteousness Thus making God's Remission of the former Acts of Sin and our Sanctification and so by it the removal of former habits of Sin the two parts of our Justification or the two effects of God's mercy in justifying us α. α Conc. Trid. Sess 6.7 c. Hanc dispositionem Justificatio ipsa consequitur quae non est Sola peccatorum remissio sed Sanctificatio Renovatio interioris hominis c. Again In ipsa Justificatione cum Remissione peccatorum haec omnia simul infusa accipit homo per Jesum Christum cui inseritur fidem Spem Charitatem 6. Sess 11. Can. Si quis dixerit homines justificari Sola peccatorum remissione exclusa gratia charitate quae in cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum infunditur Anathema sit Bellarm. de Justificationes l. 2. 6. c. Cum tam mors Christi quam resurrectio ad justificationem necessaria esset potuisset Beatus Paulus utramque partem justificationis i. e. Remissionem peccati donum renovationis tribuere morti Christi sed maluit resurrectioni tribuere renovationem Rom. 4.15 And § Deinde Justificatio non ideo Solum nobis confertur a Deo ut Gehennae paenas evadamus i. e per remissionem peccatorum sed etiam ut praemia vitae caelestis acquiramus i. e. per gratiae infusionem bona opera And see Ibid. c. 2. § Quod si Where he makes remissionem peccatorum infusionem 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